Summary
Democrats try to move forward on spending and infrastructure in Congress. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries discusses infrastructure negotiations. General Mark Milley offers dramatic testimony on the waning days of the Trump presidency. Republicans raise money from attacks on vaccine mandates. Moet Hennessy North America CEO Seth Kaufman speaks out.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: "THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER" starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Thank you so much.
[18:00:00]
Welcome to THE BEAT. I am Ari Melber.
And we`re going to kick it off like this tonight. We`re going to begin with a straightforward explanation of what is happening in Washington that affects your life, because there`s a lot happening.
Tonight, Republicans are actually trying to shut down the entire government, and also send the United States into a rare and what would be catastrophic financial default, something that, to be clear, may not actually happen, but is at least on the table as a risk.
The whole thing is real because no one can guarantee what happens next. You could have a shutdown. You could have bridges and roads crumbling. You could have the rich getting richer through the status quo. That`s what this is all about. That`s what this clash is about.
In fact, think about it like this. Twice in just the last 24 hours, Senate Republicans have been blocking the Congress from going forward on simply paying for the bills they already ran up in the Trump era through this process that we have been covering for you that`s called raising the debt ceiling. This is stuff the government already bought.
The Republican Party is saying its position -- now, they call it a negotiating position, but it`s also very real because this is all coming to a head right now -- their position is, they don`t want to pay for the things they already bought. It is obviously not fiscally responsible.
Then, today, Mitch McConnell, getting into what he likes to do at times like this. Other people are hot and bothered. But he`s just trolling and saying it`s the other folks being obstructionists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): So, look, it`s time for our Democratic colleagues to stop dragging their heels and get moving.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Yes, the person filibustering all kinds of business, preventing it from getting an up-or-down vote, is now telling us it`s somebody else dragging their feet.
This is trolling in 2021. The Republicans are saying no. Democrats are trying to get to yes, but it`s not like they have this all figured out either. They do have a broad agreement that the government should be funded, not shut down, this week.
And there is a kind of consensus about doing something, some spending on infrastructure. We have covered that. Then there is a broader fight about the progressive goals of doing big spending to expand the safety net over the long term. And how do you fund this? As always, that`s a question.
Some of it would be restoring tax rates that had existed before Donald Trump cut them.
Here`s former President Obama weighing in on all of it today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They can afford it. And I think anybody who pretends that it`s a hardship for billionaires to pay a little bit more in taxes so that a single mom gets child care support or so that we`re doing something about climate change for the next generation, that`s an argument that is unsustainable.
I think President Biden is handling it exactly right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Now, you might expect Barack Obama to agree with the person that he said should be president if he couldn`t be president, Joe Biden.
But, of course, Obama was famously moderate on many fiscal issues, Biden is pushing for larger spending based on what`s happening in the nation right now. And that`s the former president, in no uncertain terms, saying this is the right thing to do.
Now, you also have a kind of a chicken-and-egg dispute among the Democrats over how to move forward on these big bills that we`re talking about, the spending and the infrastructure. The time is running out to get the conservatives on the same page. This very first vote is set for Thursday, that moved back after these problems. So that`s the breakdown.
And we have a newsmaking guest as part of the speaker`s leadership team. A member of Speaker Pelosi`s Democratic Leadership Council, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, is here. I`m going to speak to him in a moment, in this segment.
But we begin with a journalistic perspective from Joan Walsh from "The Nation" magazine.
Hi, Joan.
JOAN WALSH, MSNBC ANALYST: Hey, Ari. Good to see you.
MELBER: Good to see you.
I want to play a little bit of what we have seen from the speaker here. Take a listen to Speaker Pelosi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Hopefully, it will measure -- it will reach the level that we need in order to pass both bills.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: We will pass both bills.
It is clear the climate crisis is here. Our Democratic majorities in Congress are taking action.
This is about creating good-paying jobs. It`s about lowering costs for families. It`s about tax breaks for the middle class.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s the speaker`s argument. She changed the schedule. She has proven to be quite a tactician, so you don`t expect her to necessarily bring something to the floor by end of week unless she has the votes.
And yet, Joan, there`s a lot of signals that this is not as certain as Democrats had hoped or said even a week or two ago.
WALSH: I think that`s right.
I don`t know -- she won`t bring it to the floor if she doesn`t have the votes. And right now, she doesn`t have the votes. You have got a couple dozen progressives who are saying they will not vote for this infrastructure bill if it`s not tied in some way to a future, larger, more generous, robust, necessary reconciliation bill.
And the problem is that there`s really -- there`s two problems, and it`s Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema. And they say they don`t like the reconciliation bill. They don`t say exactly what they don`t like about it. They won`t say what their top number is. It`s too -- they say it`s too big. OK. What`s their top number?
[18:05:16]
Joe Manchin leaves a meeting with the president today and kind of boasts on the fact that, no, we didn`t give the president number. So I really don`t like to see -- you didn`t do it by any means. But I`m seeing somewhat today progressives being depicted as somehow the roadblock or the obstacle.
There was a Democratic agreement in the House and the Senate with President Biden that they would do these bills together. So it`s the moderates who are balking and walking away from that agreement. And I`m very happy, honestly, to see the progressives playing hardball. It`s very necessary.
MELBER: Yes, it sort of creates at least a little bit of a different wind pressure tunnel around the leaders who have to, of course, keep their coalitions together when it`s not only looking at the right or the conservative Democrats or whatever you want to call them.
WALSH: Right.
MELBER: And we have more on that in the program tonight.
As you mentioned progressives, I want to show with Senator Sanders is saying, that House progressives shouldn`t go the two ways, as you said.
"Let`s be crystal clear. If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, it will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress."
Walk us through this, Joan, as a student of politics. A lot of people would look at this and say, well, nothing`s done until it`s done. Isn`t this business as usual?
But it is kind of a break with what was understood to be the deal. I mean, what`s the point of having these deals if they don`t hold through the vote?
WALSH: Exactly.
And, honestly, I`m semi-optimistic. I glad Senator Sanders said what he did. I think he had to say it. I don`t think there will be a bill, I don`t think there will be a reconciliation bill voted on before the infrastructure bill. I think it`s too complicated. I just think there`s enough disagreement among Democrats both on programs and money that that is not realistic for this week.
What I do think they could agree on, and I believe -- I can`t speak for any of the Progressive Caucus, but I think -- I have heard signals from a couple of members that they -- if they got really firm promises from Senators Manchin and Sinema that it`s roughly this big, and it contains roughly these policy priorities, I think that they would vote for the infrastructure bill.
I have no inside information, but I think that is a -- that`s a potential outcome. I don`t know if it`s likely, but it`s potential. I don`t think they`re going to insist that, no, the vote absolutely has to be taken first, because I think that`s going to be tough to accomplish, frankly.
MELBER: All very interesting here, a lot on the line.
Joan Walsh kicking us off, thank you.
We turn to a newsmaking guest, as mentioned.
And I want to give a little context, because, if you`re having a little deja vu about the debt ceiling, a little bit of a glitch in the Matrix, well, that`s because we have lived through this many times before.
Republicans do this, this kind of threatening that we might actually default as a nation, which has all kinds of consequences. But they only do it when a Democrat is president. That`s just a factual matter. When Donald Trump was president, oh, it was a very different tune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCONNELL: We`re raising the debt ceiling because America can`t default. I mean, that would be a disaster.
Let me be crystal clear about this. Republicans are united in opposition to raising the debt ceiling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We are joined by Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, part of the House Democratic leadership.
Very busy times. Thank you for making time to be here in our leadoff story on THE BEAT.
Congressman, first, your response to what we just saw there from McConnell?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Well, Mitch McConnell has no shame.
The reality is that the debt ceiling first and foremost is not a forward- looking vehicle where we are raising the debt ceiling, so we can acquire additional debt for things that we would work on into the future. The debt ceiling, as you pointed out, Ari, is a backward-looking vehicle to pay for credit card bills that the government has already acquired.
And in this particular case, those bills fall on Donald Trump`s ledger, by and large. In fact, 93 percent of the debt that needs to be acquired in connection with the debt ceiling showdown that is in front of us relates to Donald Trump`s spending.
A significant part of that is the 2017 GOP tax scam, where 83 percent of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 percent in America, saddling us with approximately $2 trillion worth of debt that the so-called fiscally conservative Republicans didn`t pay for.
[18:10:10]
Now, some other part of that debt does relate to the bipartisan agreement, such as the CARES Act, in the context of the intervention that was necessary to deal with COVID-19. But that all falls during Trump`s presidency where, by the way, we raised the debt ceiling or set it aside in a bipartisan way three different times.
And now, because there`s a Democratic president, Mitch McConnell and House Republicans are willing to detonate the full faith and credit of the United States of America. It`s wildly irresponsible.
MELBER: Yes. Well, good to get your straight-up view on that.
The record does speak for itself there. We were talking about Senator Manchin here just moments ago with Joan. She brought him up. You and your colleagues brought, I think, him up pretty specifically as far as your advocacy on this.
Let`s take a look at his exchange with our own reporter, NBC`s Garrett Haake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARRETT HAAKE, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Senator, the president keeps asking you for a number, for a price tag. Can you give him one today?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I don`t think that`s what the meeting is about.
HAAKE: Progressives think you`re dragging your feet, Senator.
MANCHIN: Everybody has their own opinion, right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Why did you all bring him up?
And what is the concern here? Is it that you have a disagreement about policy and what the numbers should be, or that we`re here in the -- kind of the closing of this, and he`s not saying what his position or numbers are?
JEFFRIES: Well, the Senate sent over to us both the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, which is important in terms of fixing our crumbling bridges, roads, tunnels, our airports, our mass transit system.
It`s a down payment in that regard, but more needs to be done. And they also sent over to us the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act framework through reconciliation.
And there was a broad understanding that we were going to proceed on parallel tracks because we need to decisively deal with the issues confronting the American people, including cutting taxes for middle-class families and working families, which is what the Build Back Better Act is all about, creating millions of good-paying jobs, particularly in areas like health care and home care and elder care and child care, and also lowering costs for everyday Americans.
And so we`re prepared to move on the House side of the equation. But we don`t have any clear visibility into what can be accomplished in the Senate now that a handful of Democratic senators have indicated, well, perhaps they`re not comfortable with the $3.5 trillion number, which, by the way, Ari, as you know, is a budget number spent over a 10-year period of time.
So it`s meaningful investments that will pay huge dividends for everyday Americans, not a one-shot deal, similar to what was necessary in COVID.
Putting that aside, what we need to proceed is an actual number from the Senate, so we can get the Build Back Better Act, along with the infrastructure agreement, over the finish line.
MELBER: Congressman Jeffries, again, thank you for walking us through what you see ahead here at this busy time. I appreciate it.
Coming up tonight on THE BEAT, we have a deep dive into the roadblocks on that Democratic side, including our fact-check for Manchin and Sinema.
Chai Komanduri is here tonight coming up.
Also, the dramatic testimony from the general who did push back against Trump in those waning days of his presidency.
And Republicans now raising money from attacks on vaccine mandates.
A lot on THE BEAT. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:17:30]
MELBER: It`s become something of a Washington tradition for decades. If you happened to catch THE BEAT last night, well, we had Bob Woodward here.
It`s known as a Woodward bombshell, the journalist reporting that a Trump era general, General Milley, was calling China to deal with these escalating fears about the unhinged antics of a lame-duck Donald Trump.
Now, reporting is vital. And we have learned a lot already from many journalists who dealt with the unusual and, at times, scary Trump era. But, today, we got a different piece of this, which is the general actually speaking out for the first time about this. We`re going to show you that in a moment.
The context is a hearing on the actual Biden policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan and resetting the U.S. presence in the Middle East, top defense officials peppered on Capitol Hill and discussing what they viewed as mistakes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We certainly did not plan against the collapse of a government in 11 days.
GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I recommended that we maintain 2, 500 troops in Afghanistan.
AUSTIN: We need to consider some uncomfortable truths.
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: It was a logistical success, but a strategic failure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This is what congressional oversight is supposed to do. Whether you agree with a given policy or a given president, this is a frank discussion of these really serious issues, including the loss of life and problems in the Afghanistan withdrawal, something that overwhelmingly most Americans support in spirit.
General Milley, though, defending himself about that diplomacy with China and recounting efforts to basically thwart what was an increasingly obvious and sloppy coup effort by Donald Trump, who wanted to stay in power, but didn`t even know how to really pull that off.
Trump was unhinged, according to many accounts, after losing the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLEY: I am certain that President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese. And it is my directed responsibility and it was my directed responsibility by the secretary to convey that intent to the Chinese.
My task at that time was to de-escalate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We know what happened.
And so unlike some stories that are full of fear of bad news, you can kind of close the chapter on this. Donald Trump didn`t try to start any last- ditch wars and he didn`t remain in office.
But what we`re learning here, even without the drama of not knowing what happens next, is super important. We`re hearing generals testify here under oath to Congress about their efforts to de-escalate the reality and perception of an American president who was seen, many people feel accurately seen, on the world stage as someone who would be an authoritarian if he could get away with it.
[18:20:08]
The general adds that he told Trump officials about this call, that this was all on the sort of up and up, as far as the bureaucracy was concerned.
And yet you have the outrage from the ex-blogger in Florida. And it may just be full outrage if he was at all informed about what his own officials were doing, if he listened to his own aides.
The general also says he told the speaker this when asked about Donald Trump`s mental capacity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLEY: On 8 January, Speaker of the House Pelosi called me to inquire about the president`s ability to launch nuclear weapons.
I am not qualified to determine the mental health of the president of the United States.
At no time was I attempting to change or influence the process, usurp authority, or insert myself in the chain of command.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: A very important distinction there, the general trying to be clear that what he did, whether people like it or not, and whether it upset Donald Trump or not, what he did, he says, was all part of his job, and not interceding in the chain of command or the peaceful transfer of power, which, despite the violence of January 6, despite what Donald Trump called for, it did ultimately occur, as we know.
Milley admits that the call to China, that the dealings with Trump and the MAGA allies also continue to fuel the problems in our own civic life in America.
The January 6 committee, meanwhile, has been preparing what look to be new work, new subpoenas, a new hunt for evidence. So it`s a lot when you take it together, especially as America looks in the mirror and asks whether it`s capable of maintaining democracy as one political party increasingly flirts with authoritarian regimes.
I have an excellent guest for this, Max Boot, when we`re back in just 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Joining me now is Max Boot, a longtime Republican foreign policy adviser now with the Council on Foreign Relations and "The Washington Post."
Good to see you, sir.
MAX BOOT, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Good to see you, Ari.
MELBER: What did we learn from the general at the hearing?
BOOT: Well, in some ways, I think the hearing was sort of a grenade that didn`t explode. I think there was a lot of anticipation of what would be said. And there was a lot of, obviously, controversy, given all the revelations about General Milley contained in the Woodward and Costa book as well as, of course, all the controversy about the exit from Afghanistan.
And I think what happened on the hearing today was basically that Milley and the other generals and the secretary of defense basically defused some of these bombshells, in particular the way that Milley made clear that he was not freelancing or going behind Trump`s back by talking to a Chinese general and reassuring him that we were not going to attack China, that he cleared that with the acting secretary of defense and the White House chief of staff.
So I would love it right now if Senator Marco Rubio and Donald Trump and all these other Republicans who accused General Milley, a decorated combat veteran, of treason -- they actually accused him of treason, based on the revelations in the Bob Woodward book.
Are they going to issue an apology? Are they going to eat their words? Are they going to say they were wrong? No, of course not. They`re going to go on to the next lie and the next faux outrage.
But I think General Milley really laid to bed some of these libelous accusations that have been made against him by so many Republicans.
And then, on the -- the other subject of the hearing, obviously was Afghanistan. And I think that was sort of a wash, because I think the generals` testimony provided ammunition for both critics and supporters of the withdrawal.
And I thought that General Milley struck the right balance when he said, yes, that logistically the withdrawal was a success. They pulled it off as well as possible. But, strategically, this was a failure, because this was a government that we had backed for 20 years that collapsed in a matter of weeks after our withdrawal, so that`s obviously not as success.
[18:25:06]
So, I thought that he was -- General Milley and General McKenzie were basically calling it straight. And they were showing that the military is not politicized, that they`re not taking sides. They`re giving their best military advice.
MELBER: All important context there.
I mentioned that Bob Woodward was here last night, and I think people, MSNBC viewers have seen him on multiple programs explaining his reporting. So it`s not really a secret that he has these sources. The high-level sources are acknowledged or pretty clearly interpretable in the account.
And yet that was where some of the Republican questioning went. Take a look at this exchange with Congresswoman Blackburn.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Did you talk to Bob Woodard (sic) or Robert Costa for their book "Peril"?
MILLEY: Woodward, yes. Costa, no.
BLACKBURN: Did you talk to Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker for their book "Alone, Can I Fix It? (sic)?
MILLEY: Yes.
BLACKBURN: Did you talk to Michael Bender for his book -- book is "Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost," yes or no?
MILLEY: Yes.
BLACKBURN: And were you accurately represented in these books?
MILLEY: I haven`t read any of the books, so I don`t know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: It could sound like shade.
Now, Max, you`re a Washington veteran. There`s a term, the Washington read, which is when government officials and ex-officials just go to the index, they read the section about themselves and move on, kind of a precursor to our looking online, in the mirror, on the Internet. Everybody has some of that appeal.
I`m curious what you think of him making a point that he didn`t read the books, but he participated, so he seems honestly acknowledging that, and what the Republican angle would be there, because a lot of this reporting, "Washington Post" books and elsewhere, has used primary sources to paint a pretty damning picture of Trump, especially on his way out.
BOOT: Right, of course. And Republicans are being completely two-faced and hypocritical, because, on the one hand, oh, it`s all fake news media, and if there`s anything negative about Trump, you can`t believe a word of it.
But if they report something that they think is positive to Trump or negative to General Milley, oh, you have to take that on faith, and they instantly leap to conclusions. And I think General Milley provided a lot of context in his testimony.
I mean, in terms of he did and talking to Woodward and all the others, that`s not unusual. Woodward has been in Washington a long time. I`m sure he`s talked to a lot of generals, a lot of chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the past.
And it`s part of their job to deal with reporters on background and off the record and so forth. That`s not unusual either. I do think that we might think that General Milley might have gotten a little bit too far out on his skis, because I think he was traumatized by what happened in the summer of 2021 when Trump pulled him along for that horrible photo-op in Lafayette Park and used him as a political prop.
And I think, ever since then, he has been very eager to show that he is not a Trump yes-man, he is not somebody who`s trying to help Trump politically. And so I think part -- his agenda in talking to all these reporters was to make clear that, no, he was actually trying to stand up for the rule of law, trying to defend the Constitution against Trump.
And I think his actions were generally appropriate. But I think there is some danger when he`s making himself into a political player, and he is leading to a backlash from Republicans in this attempt to rescue his reputation.
But I just want to return, Ari, to a point that you made at the beginning, which is, let`s not lose sight or the larger context here, because, in one of these other books, General Milley was quoted as saying that he feared that Trump would stage a Reichstag moment, would try to overthrow our democracy.
And we now know that actually happened. That wasn`t craziness.
MELBER: Right.
BOOT: That was not paranoia.
Trump actually did that with the assault on January 6. And, of course, last week, we had the Trump coup memo spelling out how this coup was supposed to work. So the larger context is that General Milley was put in a horrible, untenable position because he was trying to defend the rule of law and the Constitution against a lawless president who was trying to overthrow our own government.
That`s not something that any military man should have to do, but he was forced into that position because of Trump`s misbehavior.
MELBER: Yes, I think you weave those threads together in a really important way, Max.
And, again, Donald Trump was good at certain things, but very out of the loop and ignorant about other things. The fact that he did not understand the certification process and the roles of secretaries of state is part of why he hadn`t installed loyalists in those states.
If Donald Trump in 2016 and `17 wanted to go in and, in a more organized fashion, get those secretary of state positions filled differently, it could have been a whole different January and a whole different constitutional crisis with the overhang of political violence.
I say that not to give out tips on constitutional crises, but to note that, as we have reported here, a lot of those races are happening right now, with people using the MAGA energy of trying to have partisan loyalists who might tinker with elections.
[18:30:12]
So, this is all real. It`s all right now.
Max Boot, we appreciate you coming back on THE BEAT and hope to see you again.
BOOT: Thanks for having me.
MELBER: Absolutely.
A lot more in the program, including a story we haven`t hit yet, a top Republican caught revealing plans to undercut vaccine mandates and why the right wing appears to be banking on this kind of misinformation.
But, first, liberals pushing conservative Democrats to get in on the Biden agenda. We have a special breakdown. And it is "Chai Day." He`s here.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: It`s the multitrillion-dollar question this week.
Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema back at the White House, as Joe Biden tries to figure out, what would it take to get them to yes on the spending packages? Well, tonight, we have some answers to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: We don`t -- that`s the frustration, Democrats say, is, they don`t know Joe Manchin wants, they don`t know what his bottom line is. And they don`t know what her bottom line is.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN: Right now, Democrats are locked in a stalemate that could kill the president`s legislative agenda.
HAAKE: There just may not be one to have if Manchin and Sinema are still flatly refusing to put any kind of number out there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Look, real talk. Manchin and Sinema aren`t playing hardball here. This is more like they`re playing Calvin Ball. That`s the famous game from the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon where you just make up the rules as you go along.
[18:35:08]
These senators won`t even say what their policy conditions are right now. Biden will. He`s pushing for about $3.5 trillion to expand the safety net. They`re not coming back with a specific counteroffer to the president in their own party.
In fact, I`m telling you something, but it really has become widely known. It`s a bit of a joke in the political cartoons of our modern era, the homemade Internet memes.
Here`s a scene from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" reimagined with the quote: "Someone should tell Manchin and Sinema they`re going the wrong way or they will get in a crash."
And this is "Chai Day," as I mentioned. A friend of THE BEAT, the Obama veteran Chai Komanduri says the senators here aren`t maniac drivers. They are trying to brand themselves independent of the party and Biden. They`re both flirting with the fame of individuality and rebellion.
Komanduri argues that what`s driving them, and specifically Manchin, in addition to the coal industry pressure, which could have a role to play on his climate views, is also the desire to simply appear centrist in public, no matter what, to be positioned as a moderating force, and thus it won`t matter how much Biden or the progressives want to spend.
Manchin has to be publicly against it, at least for a while, which leads to scenes like this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Senator, so have you been clear with the White House about how much you`re willing to spend on this human infrastructure bill?
MANCHIN: We`re working. We`re just working. We`re all -- we`re all still talking and working together?
QUESTION: Is the White House clear on what you want?
MANCHIN: I think they`re pretty much understanding where I am.
QUESTION: And so you don`t care how much this bill is? You just need to -- you just need it explained to you that...
MANCHIN: I want the -- well, I do care about the bill. I care about the size of bill. Sure, I do. Everybody cares.
QUESTION: Three-point-five is still too high for you?
MANCHIN: That`s pretty high.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Pretty high, but he doesn`t say how high.
Like Manchin, Sinema also not really clarifying in a bargaining position what amount of spending she thinks is right. She`s holding the line against raising taxes in private conversations with Democrats. She`s fund-raising off that stance.
And a fact-check here. Some of these very tax reforms would basically roll back Trump`s tax cuts, which just brings them closer to the level that Sinema herself used to support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re verifying how Democratic Congresswoman and U.S. Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema voted on the cuts.
Last November, she joined all her fellow Democrats in opposing them. But when the House of Representatives voted last week to make the tax cuts for individuals permanent, Sinema switched sides, joining Republicans to vote yes. Sinema voted yes, despite her warning a year ago about the government borrowing more and more money to pay for the tax cuts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This is policy Calvin Ball, but it`s not a joke. Sinema has done this on other issues in the House.
She called for raising the minimum wage. And then, this year, in the Senate, she spiked a Democratic plan to raise it, even including a dramatic thumbs down vote you can see on your screen.
If you`re getting the sense this isn`t all about policy, you are right. If you`re getting the sense that they are making up the rules as they go along just to ensure a public demonstration that they`re giving the Democrats or Biden or Schumer a tough time, you`re right.
That`s why this is political Calvin Ball. But here`s the thing. Joe Manchin is not a 6-year-old boy. And this pandemic recession is not an imaginary tiger. The stakes are real tonight. The tradeoffs are real.
And while every senator, of course, has a right to sate their policy position and fight for it, we are running out of time as a nation for people who just make up the rules so they can posture in public opposition.
And we might just be in the final scene of another Manchin political opera. We have lived through these before together, where the posturing does ultimately land on a deal. And that`s what makes these battles so tricky.
When you`re playing policy Calvin Ball, you might ultimately be dealing with a paper tiger.
Now we turn to our deep-dive political conversation, as promised. It`s day on THE BEAT, we call "Chai Day" with political strategist Chai Komanduri, a veteran of several presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama.
Chai, your thoughts on the Calvin Ball here?
CHAI KOMANDURI, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I mean, we talked about this before on a previous "Chai Day."
This is really part of a flawed political strategy, one that might have made sense in the 1980s, when "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" was released, when "Calvin and Hobbes" were at its height in U.S. newspapers. But it`s not something that makes sense now, which is the idea that you can have a brand in your state that is somehow independent of what Joe Biden has.
The only brand that matters in Arizona, for example, is the Biden brand. It`s not the Sinema brand. The idea that Kyrsten Sinema can have a McCain maverick brand, which I think is something that she has talked about her admiration for John McCain, something that she`s clearly going for, That`s just a fallacy.
[18:40:02]
What really matters is how popular or unpopular Joe Biden is and what individual senators are doing to help him become more popular, or, in the case of Republicans, less popular.
The second thing I would say is, not everything in politics tends to be about political strategy. Sometimes, it`s just really about personality. A lot of discussion has been about how Kyrsten Sinema was a member of the Green Party, for example.
Now, in my experience, Green Party doesn`t just attract people who are far left or very liberal. It also attracts people who are nonconformists, who do not like to listen to conventional political wisdom.
Kyrsten Sinema could very well just be a nonconformist by temperament. The same thing could be true with Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin, before he became senator, was a very popular governor in West Virginia. And governors tend to be solo acts. They tend not to be team players.
And Manchin, by temperament, by personality, just might be more comfortable in that kind of groove. But, thirdly -- and this is where I would bring in the famous line from Watergate, the movie, "All the President`s Men," follow the money.
Fund-raising, I think, is very important here. The reality is that moderate Democrats cannot fund-raise nationally online the way progressives do. They simply cannot raise the money online the way somebody like AOC or Bernie Sanders is able to do.
MELBER: Yes.
KOMANDURI: What they feel is that their only avenue to raising money is through wealthy donors, in some cases, through corporate interests.
That is the only way that they feel they can be competitive in these very difficult districts. So I think that is a very crucial piece to why moderate Democrats behave the way they do.
MELBER: A great point. You talk about Manchin wanting to be a singular force. He didn`t just hit FOX News, which might make sense for West Virginia, or hit two channels. He hit them all on Sunday, which Chris Wallace even pointed out. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY": You are on for Sunday shows today. And the question I have is, are you enjoying your position of power maybe a little too much?
MANCHIN: I sure hope not. Oh, my goodness. Then I would be a -- that would be horrible. That`s not -- no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Chai, my goodness, oh, shiver me timbers, or whatever other folksisms you need. He has a team that made sure he`s out there and he is a central player, which is why I mentioned whether this is some type of theater that lands with him still coming along.
KOMANDURI: I think, ultimately, you have to believe that they will not do the things that will sink Joe Biden nationally to such an extent that it would actually fully imperil them.
But the problem also, I think, here with Joe Manchin is kind of the way he talks about these issues. I mean, he says that he`s very in fiscal discipline and debt reduction is very important him.
Well, there is a way to talk about these issues that are more appealing to progressives and Democrats. And I don`t think he`s really doing it. The choice that most Democrats see is not between Democratic spending and deficit reduction. It`s between Democratic spending and future Republican tax cuts.
You would have to really create a framework to say that this is not unilateral disarmament on the part of Democrats to focus on fiscal discipline. There also is the fact that economists have been very clear that deficits really should not be a concern at this time, that we really should focus on infrastructure...
MELBER: Yes.
KOMANDURI: ... including infrastructure investments in education, and other things.
But there is a way to talk about this that is more appealing to Democrats and progressives that is simply not really being done by moderates.
MELBER: Yes.
That`s a great point, as well as your structural breakdown of some of the incentives here. That`s what makes it "Chai Day."
Chai Komanduri, thank you.
When we come back: the GOP`s vaccine cash-in. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:48:01]
MELBER: Polling shows broad support for these Biden vaccine mandates, which are a partial way to compel vaccinations at work and other places, but some Republicans still see a kind of an opportunity here.
The RNC has a basic fund-raising frenzy going attacking the mandates and asking supporters for a $45 contribution to pay for expensive lawsuits.
Another analysis from a FOX News insider says the attacks on vaccine mandates are great for their ratings.
We are closing in on 700,000 COVID deaths nationwide. And the question here is, is anything sacred?
Now, when we come back, we have something very special about the pandemic rebound and Jay-Z and spirits that you won`t see anywhere else.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:52:20]
MELBER: We have been reporting on how President Biden is pushing even more spending, while stressing that what they have spent already has been working.
Now, let`s look at the facts. Almost a million new jobs were added in a recent jobs report, which is something to toast. And people are doing that too. In fact, this year, the hospitality and leisure sector added over two million jobs. More people are going out and drinking. But that`s actually one thing that didn`t change during lockdowns.
Let me explain. Plenty of people kept drinking at home. Did you know that, while the economy was tanking last year, the alcohol sector improved by a lot, the highest sales in 18 years? And alcohol is one of those things we all live with, but don`t really analyze that much, even as it impacts everything from the jobs I mentioned to our socializing to our culture and, in some cases, our addictions.
A little drinking is fine. Too much drinking can ruin your life.
Now, some of the top spirits brands have become cultural touchstones. Take Moet Hennessy, a company with one of the most prestigious luxury brands in the world. LVMH houses iconic names you know like Louis Vuitton, Dior, Tiffany, drinks like Moet champagne and Hennessy cognac, which are the unique brands that people order with a very specific luxury in mind.
They have a kind of appeal that`s classic, although LVMH has modernized, linking up with Ace of Spades from Jay-Z, the musician and Obama endorser recently explaining that new alliance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY-Z, MUSICIAN AND BUSINESS OWNER: The way they care about products, we build in luxury products. And Moet Hennessy goes about it the same way. So we are aligned in our in our thoughts of integrity and passion for the things that we build.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Passion, integrity, luxury? Not bad, if it`s all true.
And we`re joined by someone very special leading all of this. Seth Kaufman is the CEO of Moet Hennessy North America.
Let`s start with the most straightforward thing people relate to. Drinking was up during lockdown. How do you view that as a company, an opportunity, and also your responsibility to make sure that, OK, people are at home drinking, I get it, hopefully not drinking to excess?
SETH KAUFMAN, CEO, MOET HENNESSY NORTH AMERICA: During the pandemic, throughout the pandemic, consumers were really finding new at-home consumption occasions. and, as a result, they were drinking more premium, more luxury, having deeper knowledge of quality.
So it`s really encouraging as we think about the industry. Consumers are looking for great, quality products.
MELBER: I want you to also speak to something we saw here on one of the programs you guys have, Unfinished Business, working directly with minority-owned businesses, and perhaps looking at how luxury can be exclusive, but not in a way that cuts out people`s opportunities.
[18:55:02]
Tell us about how you view that.
KAUFMAN: During the pandemic, it was obvious that black Americans, Latinx Americans, Asian Americans were getting hit harder by the pandemic. So we found that we had a responsibility really to pay back into those communities that we`re such a big part of.
So, what Unfinished Business is, it`s a program that essentially gave grant money to small business owners who -- black-owned businesses, Latinx-owned businesses, and Asian American-owned businesses. And, to date, we have given about $5.5 million of capital to just under 2,000 Businesses.
MELBER: Yes.
When you look at this big picture, and people say, OK, what am I paying for -- I was talking to Wolfgang Puck. Is this overpriced? He insists, no, because of the quality proposition.
So tell us why you think some of these things are worth quadruple, quintuple what prosecco might cost.
KAUFMAN: Champagne is made in a very, very traditional way that takes longer and is done with much more quality than that of prosecco.
So, is it more expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely. And are consumers finding that it`s worth it? Without question throughout the pandemic, because, like I said, they have deeper knowledge of quality, deeper knowledge of what is worth paying for.
MELBER: When I was growing up, I`d be hearing about your -- some of these products in music, a lot of shout-outs.
We mentioned some of your partnerships, but you have got something where people sometimes are shouting it out not because they`re being paid but, because they really love the brand.
And so, since you`re on THE BEAT, we`re going to put you a little bit on the spot, because I don`t know what you know, but it is in your wheelhouse, your business.
We`re going to -- if you`re willing, we`re going to play lyrics quiz, just three cognac-related lyrics. Are you ready?
KAUFMAN: Sure.
MELBER: The first one`s easy. They want to know who`s my role model? It`s in the brown bottle. What`s the next word?
KAUFMAN: Hennessy.
MELBER: Correct. Hennessy, a classic Tupac song called "Hennessy."
All right, we`re moving on and getting a little harder here.
We have Busta Rhymes, who`s been on THE BEAT like yourself. He said, you can give me whatever. You finish it.
KAUFMAN: Moet & Chandon.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: He mentioned those times. But this is one of your rivals. He says, just pass the Courvoisier. Sorry. It can`t all be Hennessy.
And third and finally, since you`re a good sport, one of the biggest global icons in pop or hip-hop, a song that played all over the world, big Afrobeat song. Drake says, I need a one dance. Finish it.
KAUFMAN: Moet & Chandon.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: No, and this was a big -- this was one of Drake`s biggest song in the world.
KAUFMAN: I thought you were trying to trick me.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: I need a one dance. Got a Hennessy in my hand one more time before I go.
So, you`re a good sport.
What does it say to you that in the culture, again, if you can -- if you want to tell us, if you guys ever did a deal with Drake and that`s why you put in the song, please tell us, but if he did it just because it`s part of the culture, that`s interesting, too.
What do you think about all this love you`re getting?
KAUFMAN: No look, as I said before, Hennessy has always been a staple in communities and has focused on enriching culture.
As a result, culture talks about, consumes and loves Hennessy. Over the past two years, Hennessy has actually been the number one spirit dropped in songs, according to Genius Music I.Q. And that is not a new trend.
So it`s -- again, because of our role in communities, because of how we have leaned into culture, and we continue to, Hennessy is one of those brands that inherently gets into a lot of these songs, because of what Hennessy is and what we have done.
MELBER: Yes, and because, again, there`s this -- there is a type of aspiration. You see it in the music. You see it in any young person who looks around the world, says, what I want to be involved with?
So it is interesting. As we mentioned, it`s alcohol, but it`s also something larger there.
So, shout-out to Henny and Seth.
Seth Kaufman, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
KAUFMAN: All right, have a good one.
MELBER: And we want to ask you, BEAT viewers, do you have a favorite song that mentions spirits or a virgin drink, that`s fine too, or food?
Tell me @AriMelber on any social media platform, what`s your favorite song or lyric citing a drink, any drink or food, @AriMelber. You can also always find me and my newsletter at AriMelber.com.
That does it for THE BEAT.
"THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID" is up next.
I don`t think Joy has a Hennessy in her hand. But I do think she has a great show on her hands.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: How you doing?
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: I`m good. And, listen, however this show goes, you can blame it on the -- not on that, though. Don`t blame it on the -- we`re not going to blame it on that.
We`re going -- we -- no. I`m not even going to go there. Bye, Ari.
(LAUGHTER)
MELBER: I get it.
REID: Have a good night.
Good evening, everyone.
We begin "THE REIDOUT" with a little theater.