Speaker 1: Lad with food.
Speaker 2: My final thought is going to be about crime. I
Speaker 2: had some thoughts earlier in the show. I said the
Speaker 2: first word was going to be Mayor Karen Bass as
Speaker 2: she was releasing some of the crime stats and how
Speaker 2: they were at least on a surface positive or moving
Speaker 2: in the right direction. And I just wanted to offer
Speaker 2: just a little bit more perspective before the night is through.
Speaker 2: And it's not that I'm against her offering the crime stats,
Speaker 2: and there's no need to go over them again. And yes,
Speaker 2: the numbers were positive relative to twenty twenty three, and
Speaker 2: improvement is that improvement. I'll take it. Better is better.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to quibble about that. But by saying
Speaker 2: something is better, there also needs to be context to
Speaker 2: point out of reference. The easy response, or at least
Speaker 2: I call it easy, to any crime stat is pointing
Speaker 2: out the obvious that crime stats only reflect crimes which
Speaker 2: have actually been reported, and that's in the past, that
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with the president of the future.
Speaker 2: Is not some sort of force field protection for the future.
Speaker 2: And since we know that crime stats are always relative
Speaker 2: to crime actually reported, and it's true for all crime stats,
Speaker 2: not just these crime stats, so let's not get bent
Speaker 2: out of shape or act like these today are somehow
Speaker 2: different just because they're positive. We can't just dismiss them
Speaker 2: out of hand. Let's be fair here. We're not going
Speaker 2: to say, just because they're positive, whether they're fake. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to do that. Pure murders and less
Speaker 2: violent crime always good things. Let's agree on that. But
Speaker 2: let's not oversell it either. The real discussion is whether
Speaker 2: this is going to be a larger trend or just
Speaker 2: a temporary fluctuation, liable to increase again next year. That's
Speaker 2: my question. Crime is a fickle thing. It depends largely
Speaker 2: on the willingness of people to follow or break the law.
Speaker 2: We as people have more influence on crime than actual
Speaker 2: law enforcement, and that has always been true.
Speaker 3: Something else about crime and safety.
Speaker 2: Safety is not, has not, and will not ever be
Speaker 2: connected to raw stats. You can tell me that murders
Speaker 2: are down ten percent, and that really doesn't mean a
Speaker 2: damn thing in our everyday lives. Crime stats are not
Speaker 2: a predictor of the future. I will say it again
Speaker 2: and again and again. It's only a reference to the past.
Speaker 2: Murders being down ten percent or whatever number doesn't make
Speaker 2: me you or your family feel any safer. And this
Speaker 2: is definitely about feelings. Nobody's going to walk outside and say, damn,
Speaker 2: I feel ten percent safer or I feel ten percent
Speaker 2: less likely to be murdered today.
Speaker 3: How about that?
Speaker 2: Because safety begins it ends with feelings, and safety is
Speaker 2: about trust. You know, I don't like to fly, and
Speaker 2: there are no stats that you can give me about
Speaker 2: flying being the safest way to travel, which is going
Speaker 2: to impact that fear. So you can save your breath.
Speaker 2: You just have to make me feel safe. That's all
Speaker 2: you can do. Here's another example, and Mark Runner knows
Speaker 2: what I'm talking about. Mark and I have a shared
Speaker 2: dislike and apprehension of going to the dentist. The reason
Speaker 2: I am with my dentist right now is because he
Speaker 2: goes over and above to demonstrate he understands and relates
Speaker 2: to my fear, doesn't talk down to me, doesn't tell
Speaker 2: me why it's supposedly in an irrational fear. Mayor Bass
Speaker 2: could learn something from that, because she made no attempt
Speaker 2: to connect with us or demonstrated that she personally has
Speaker 2: the saying safety concerns that the rest of us do collectively.
Speaker 2: Safety is one hundred percent personal Mayor Bass could announce
Speaker 2: that there were zero murders next year and zero property crime,
Speaker 2: but if you and I can feel it, it means nothing.
Speaker 2: And I'm not going to change my behavior as to
Speaker 2: riding Metro, getting gas, buying groceries, walking my dogs because
Speaker 2: crime is down. That press conference today felt like it
Speaker 2: was coming from someone who did not share or understand
Speaker 2: my concerns, does not have to make those same choices,
Speaker 2: not make the same considerations, and ultimately does not have
Speaker 2: the same skin in the game as I do, as
Speaker 2: you do. And this is less about Mayor Bass because
Speaker 2: crime is not limited to the borders of La City.
Speaker 2: Crime being down in the city of La has zero
Speaker 2: to do with crime in unincorporated LA and La County.
Speaker 2: It's bigger than any boundary, and nobody drives from Guardina
Speaker 2: to La or vice versa, and thanks all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, my safety quotient has changed. I guess
Speaker 2: it comes down to this, As I close, people will
Speaker 2: not feel any differently about crime or whether it's going
Speaker 2: up or down until we feel that those elected to
Speaker 2: address it have to worry about it too, have the
Speaker 2: same concerns as you and I do. Because until that changes,
Speaker 2: the stats will never matter whether we believe them or not.
Speaker 2: For KF I am six forty. I'm Moe Kelly. And
Speaker 2: for my final thought this evening, I wanted to talk
Speaker 2: about the Democrats, and the general storyline of late is
Speaker 2: that the Democrats have hit their lowest level of popularity
Speaker 2: in a generation or ever, or something like that. Most
Speaker 2: of the stories are somewhere along those lines. Everybody hates Democrats,
Speaker 2: and if you ever listen to this show for any
Speaker 2: length of time, you would know.
Speaker 3: I don't do polls or approval ratings.
Speaker 2: To me, they're a little different than asking someone if
Speaker 2: they're hungry or if they're ready to go to the
Speaker 2: gym or something. Polls don't tell you much, and they
Speaker 2: all change with time or the weather. But the Democrats
Speaker 2: as a party have been going through some things. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't call it puberty, but they've been going something, going
Speaker 2: through some things. Voters have been voicing their displeasure with
Speaker 2: the DNC it's new leadership and all leadership for that matter.
Speaker 2: Democrats inside the party have voiced their displeasure with the
Speaker 2: lack of strategy to respond to the Trump administration, and
Speaker 2: there are some high profile members who have either left
Speaker 2: the party or called for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries
Speaker 2: to step up and meet the moment and for Senate
Speaker 2: Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down and call it
Speaker 2: a day. The latter who is out on an almost
Speaker 2: canceled book tour, that's the only way I can describe it,
Speaker 2: which is now some sort of explanation tour, trying to
Speaker 2: tell his side of the story as to why he
Speaker 2: decided to go along with Republicans and vote for the
Speaker 2: Continuing Resolution to keep the government open. Today, he was
Speaker 2: a guest on the View and this was his explanation.
Speaker 1: Great, what were you thinking and why? So? Look, I
Speaker 1: knew it was a difficult choice, and I knew that
Speaker 1: I get a lot of criticism from my choice, but
Speaker 1: I felt as a leader, I had to do it.
Speaker 1: Here's why the CR bill was bad, no question. And
Speaker 1: it allowed a slush fund which allowed money to be
Speaker 1: pushed around. That's finding for the part people who don't
Speaker 1: know what beans continue the government spending a shutdown. The
Speaker 1: alternative is cut off the government spending. And here's what
Speaker 1: would happen if we cut off government spending. It would
Speaker 1: be devastation like, we have never seen worse than we're
Speaker 1: saying now much. Here's why.
Speaker 3: That's why I did it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't going to take this flat just for having
Speaker 1: a lot of fun. The bottom line is a government
Speaker 1: shutdown works like this. All government spending is stopped all
Speaker 1: and then the executive branch Trump, Musk, Doge and this
Speaker 1: real evil man. People don't know about Vote, who's head
Speaker 1: of OMB. His name is Vote, And they could cut
Speaker 1: off anything they want simply by saying it's not essential.
Speaker 1: So Day two, snap food for poor kids not essential.
Speaker 1: Day four, mass transit New York City subway and subways
Speaker 1: all over not essential. Day seven Medicaid not essential. People
Speaker 1: don't need Medicaid. They should get their own health care.
Speaker 1: And this would happen over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: and there's no check.
Speaker 3: In his explanation and reasoning.
Speaker 2: Is why the Democrats are rightly seen as dysfunctional. Whereas
Speaker 2: what Schumer said was factually accurate as to what happens
Speaker 2: during a shutdown, it's also a fact that nobody else
Speaker 2: at a damn party knew that that was going to
Speaker 2: be his play. The House stood in solidarity, obviously thinking
Speaker 2: that the Senate and Democratic caucus as a whole were
Speaker 2: in agreement.
Speaker 3: They weren't.
Speaker 2: Schumer's decision caught most of the party by surprise. Also,
Speaker 2: the nature of the shutdown is not new. Everyone should
Speaker 2: have known that's what's going to happen. Schumer acted like
Speaker 2: he had some last moment epiphany. He was not in
Speaker 2: possession of some secret knowledge. He was one of the
Speaker 2: few moments in which the Democrats could have demonstrated a
Speaker 2: united front and also forced Republicans to the table. But
Speaker 2: instead the Democrats got nothing except clowned and the Republicans
Speaker 2: got everything they wanted. Was zero opposition, zero downside publicly
Speaker 2: embarrassing Hakim Jeffreys and the party as a whole.
Speaker 3: A win win win, win win.
Speaker 2: And although I don't personally care about polls, they do
Speaker 2: highlight how poorly the party handles its own messaging, creates
Speaker 2: a viable strategy, or connects with voters in a contemporary sense.
Speaker 2: They're not winning anybody over, not even Democrats. But here's
Speaker 2: something that the Republicans have mastered and the Democrats haven't
Speaker 2: even started practicing. The Republicans play to win, no matter
Speaker 2: the cost. Mitch McConnell didn't care that there was no
Speaker 2: constitutional precedent to hold up the Merrick Garland Scotis nomination
Speaker 2: because it was supposedly an election year.
Speaker 3: He did it because it was important to his party.
Speaker 2: He didn't mind seeming hypocritical by rushing through the Amy
Speaker 2: Cony Barrett Scotis nomination a week before a presidential election
Speaker 2: in the very next cycle. Why because it was important
Speaker 2: to the party, and the fruits of those labors are
Speaker 2: continuing to shape America at this very moment. Republicans play
Speaker 2: the long game. Democrats have no long range plan or strategy.
Speaker 2: Republicans play to win. Democrats play by the rules, or
Speaker 2: what they think are the rules. That's why Donald Trump
Speaker 2: can say I don't care what the judges say. Close quote,
Speaker 2: openly defy lawful rulings and there be neither consequences nor
Speaker 2: a democratic response. But despite all that, here's what I
Speaker 2: believe the media has missed in the assessment of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, which is not to be confused with the
Speaker 2: Democrat Party, which doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: It's March of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: There are no elections to win or lose on the
Speaker 2: immediate horizon. You don't select a prom queen during the
Speaker 2: third week of school some of the handwringing is definitely overblown.
Speaker 2: That's another lesson the Dems could learn from the Republicans.
Speaker 2: Stop panicking more than a year and a half before
Speaker 2: you have to worry about losing another election. Probably will,
Speaker 2: but at least you have time to prepare. Use it wisely.
Speaker 2: For CAF I am six forty. I'm o Kelly. But
Speaker 2: for my final thought tonight, I wanted to give some
Speaker 2: updated comments about Tesla now as Tesla stock has fallen
Speaker 2: in recent weeks, members of the board and an executive
Speaker 2: at Elon Musk's company have been.
Speaker 3: Selling off millions of dollars in stock, and this is
Speaker 3: according to filings with the SEC.
Speaker 2: Together, four top officers at the company have offloaded over
Speaker 2: one hundred million dollars in shares since early February. James Murdoch,
Speaker 2: yes related to Rupert Murdoch, his son and a board
Speaker 2: member since twenty seventeen. James Murdoch that is, exercised a
Speaker 2: stock option and sold shares worth approximately thirteen million according
Speaker 2: to the SEC regarding a filing back on March tenth,
Speaker 2: which coincided ticket however you want, coincided with the stock's
Speaker 2: largest single day decline in five years.
Speaker 3: Here's the bigger picture.
Speaker 2: Tesla stock is headed toward a ninth straight weekly drop,
Speaker 2: and shares now have plummeted fifty three percent from record
Speaker 2: highs back in mid December. The Tesla protests we all
Speaker 2: know about them. The vandalism, we all know about them,
Speaker 2: but they've been growing in recent days, and with the
Speaker 2: White House and DOJ signaling that such acts are to
Speaker 2: be considered quote unquote domestic terrorism. And if you're wondering
Speaker 2: whether Elon Musk is concerned, his public behavior suggests that
Speaker 2: he is absolutely concerned. In a Fox News interview this week,
Speaker 2: Musk offered the following quote, It's really come as quite
Speaker 2: a shock to me that there is this level of
Speaker 2: hatred and violence from the left. I always thought that
Speaker 2: Democrats were supposed to be the party of empathy and caring,
Speaker 2: and yet they are burning down cars, fire bombing dealerships,
Speaker 2: firing bullets into dealerships, smashing up Tesla's clothes.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Whereas it's easy and reductionist to say that the boycott
Speaker 2: and vandalism are acts of political violence, and specifically from
Speaker 2: quote unquote the Democrats, not so simple. The dose cuts
Speaker 2: cross all demographics and impact people registered to both parties.
Speaker 2: To suggest the anger over loss of jobs, benefits and
Speaker 2: four h one k valuations is only attached to registered Democrats.
Speaker 3: That may be politically.
Speaker 2: Expedient, but it would also be remarkably dishonest. I can
Speaker 2: promise you the sell off of Tesla's stock is not
Speaker 2: a dim party thing. I could promise you that the
Speaker 2: veterans impacted and angered are likely not predominantly registered Dems.
Speaker 2: The dose cuts have been far too vast, far too
Speaker 2: wide and deep to argue that the only angry people
Speaker 2: in the streets or anger against the Tesla brand are
Speaker 2: registered Dems. The only people who are committing violence are
Speaker 2: registered Dems.
Speaker 3: That defies explanation and mathematical logic that I know.
Speaker 2: It caters to your political worldview if you happen to
Speaker 2: be a Republican or a MAGA supporter, but it defies logic. Also,
Speaker 2: Elon Musk is not in any way attempting to endear
Speaker 2: himself to those most affected, either insulting them directly like
Speaker 2: Senator Mark Kelly, or more generally railing against decency or empathy.
Speaker 3: He definitely can't have it both ways.
Speaker 2: I personally would never support and would never recommend violence
Speaker 2: or vandalism, never, but I absolutely can understand and point
Speaker 2: to the catalysts which often lead to it. Musk also said, quote,
Speaker 2: it turns out when you take away people's money that
Speaker 2: they are receiving fraudulently, they get very upset. They basically
Speaker 2: want to kill me because I'm stopping their fraud, and
Speaker 2: they want to hurt Tesla because we're stopping this terrible
Speaker 2: waste and corruption in the government. Well, I guess they're
Speaker 2: bad people. Bad people do bad things. Close quote. Actually,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if he meant that as an accusation
Speaker 2: or a confession, because that cuts both ways.
Speaker 3: But I digress.
Speaker 2: In any event, As I've said before and I will
Speaker 2: say again, Elon Musk has not conducted any forensic audit
Speaker 2: or shown any proof of any fraud. He's listed fraud,
Speaker 2: he's alleged fraud, but he's never shown any proof. He's
Speaker 2: alleged fraud and required we take his word for it,
Speaker 2: while also avoiding touching any of his contracts with the
Speaker 2: federal government. But he will have to make a decision
Speaker 2: as to what's most important, and it's his to make.
Speaker 2: I can't make it for him, and no one can
Speaker 2: tell the richest man in the world what to do,
Speaker 2: So it's up to him.
Speaker 3: He can be an.
Speaker 2: Agent of Donald Trump and continued to ruin the people's
Speaker 2: professionals and personal lives without justification, without evidence, without empathy,
Speaker 2: and deal with the social ramifications of such. Or he
Speaker 2: can step down as president and CEO of Tesla for
Speaker 2: the sake of his investors in the future of the company.
Speaker 2: But he will not get the latitude of continuing with Doge,
Speaker 2: mocking his detractors, placing blame elsewhere, and expecting that Tesla
Speaker 2: not pay a price for its association with him. They
Speaker 2: were already Inspectors General to do exactly what Doze claims
Speaker 2: to be doing right now. They literally are tasked with
Speaker 2: finding fraud, waste, and abuse, but also there are official
Speaker 2: verification and execution processes for it to be done correctly,
Speaker 2: legally and transparently. Elon Musk is not doing any of
Speaker 2: that America, and Americans have no responsibility or obligation to
Speaker 2: just take Elon Musk's word that he is ridding our
Speaker 2: government of waste, fraud, and abuse, and it's being done
Speaker 2: without favor or political preference. Nobody is obligated to take
Speaker 2: his word for it. Nor are we to cry tears
Speaker 2: over the struggles of Tesla while he mocks the very
Speaker 2: people he fired and their struggles. No empathy for me,
Speaker 2: none for THEE. Fair is fair for KF. I am
Speaker 2: six forty. I'm mo Kelly