Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Larry O Connor  CSPAN  August 6, 2019 7:29pm-7:47pm EDT

7:29 pm
producer for "the daily" podcast . two c-span check out the washington journal mugs and see all of the c-span products. on wednesday, washington journal continues its series with a host and producers of podcasts about how they put their episodes together. in the top issues they are watching. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, mark leon goldberg host of "global dispatches" will join us. watch washington journal every morning on c-span. joining us today, larry o'connor, host of the examining politics continues its
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
a man who was on that debate stage twice from the left, from the democrats perspective. that is an important part of the conversation. even if i disagreed with them. that is an important part of what we do. we have reached a point in this country where it is almost a unicorn idea that people with opposing political ideas and perspectives can have a lively and informed conversation. it is important to me and the washington examiner that we display that and put it forward, that we disagree, but we have to get something done through our words, not through any kind of vile rhetoric that we see so often. >> how often do you produce a podcast? how do you go about determining the content and where can people find you? >> this is a daily podcast. a lot of times, podcasters are working on a weekly basis or
7:33 pm
biweekly date -- basis. talk show i also have a two hour program in los angeles on kabc radio. that is five hours of content. . that is five hours of content. i usually talk to 5-8 guests per day depending on the cycle. we curate the best of those interviews everyday for 30-40 withe podcast put together the best and most informed interviews i have conducted on radio and i preface it with my own opening specific to the podcast. i talked about what happened today. how we approached it. reactions. it is relevant to the 2020 election. we take the focus of almost everything in the cycle now with huge ramifications for the election. not just the road to charlotte for the rnc or to milwaukee, and then to the general election.
7:34 pm
every day we get ready at 6:30 p.m. eastern and people can get it at apple podcast, google, and that our website. and ifur guest with us you want to ask him questions, call and let us know. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. i(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. .weet us at @cspanwj mentionedor, you current day events. the shootings of the last 24 hours, how do you look at that and what do you think you will be talking about from that perspective on your podcast intro? -- and show? guest: we are waiting for the president's remarks at 10 a.m. eastern and that will have a big impact on the conversation. as a radio host, i deal with
7:35 pm
this anytime we have a horrible event like this, it is challenging, obviously, because so many times people want to immediately jump into the politics of it. i find that horrific. i am a father of children. i like to put myself in a position of what those families are going through. i wish we could have a moratorium on politicizing events like this and trying to draw grand political conclusions, especially in our new cycle, when so much info we get following these events becomes ingrained into our public psyche and we find out a week later it was not accurate. to have we are going much conversation today about gun control. that always seems to loom something like this happens. as you have seen already, there is the idea that in some way, political rhetoric and our national political conversation about various policies in our country is in some way
7:36 pm
mad men andof these horrible, people ask. i think it is a disservice to the american people and people who all positions one way or another on the issues. there are hundreds of millions of people in america. we all have different political ideas. we feel passionately about them. we are not picking up arms and slaughtering innocent people in the name of those politics. to suggest that political positions and political ideas should not be discussed because somebody might be inspired to do something violent is a horrific idea. i'm going to try to have that conversation. when people want to bring politics into it, i will maintain the importance of our first amendment. by the way, i have heard republicans talking about violent video games and that videogames had something to do with this. i protect the second amendment and i protect the first amendment too. there are tens of millions of people who enjoy video games
7:37 pm
without ever getting violent. i think to suggest that there is some sort of direct connection to violent art and entertainment and these horrific acts is misguided as well. i always lean toward freedom and liberty and isolate those people who have serious problems and give them the help they need so they can't do others harm. i think that is the solution going forward. i hope we have that conversation. host: the president mentioned in a tweet talking about general issues but bringing up the idea of background checks as a possible way forward, where do you think that falls, especially from the point of view of conservatives or republicans or what have you when it comes to background checks, when it comes to guns? guest: we will see how that conversation goes and what the president is proposing. most of the people who are strong advocates for the second amendment are not against the idea of a background check. the way it ist on simple needed. whether it is a legitimate or
7:38 pm
secure way. false positives are not the standard of the day. that said, i wonder if we often walk down this path of feeling like we have to do something. this is such a senseless act of violence, what we saw in el paso and dayton. i think our initial reaction is we have to do something without stopping to say that something that we are going to do, what did it have to do, would it have prevented what happened in el paso and dayton? i haven't seen a whole lot of these recent mass shootings that we have seen that would have been prevented by background checks. listen, i am open to have that conversation to see what the details are and to see if we can make a difference, great. who doesn't want to make a difference in trying to solve this problem? host: several brought up the idea of presidential rhetoric on these type of topics, how do you weigh into that argument? sad and think it is
7:39 pm
despicable that politicians try to blame their opponents for some senseless act of violence. i think it was beto o'rourke, who not only blamed the president but fox news as well. it is really insulting, frankly to so many americans who support the president and watch fox news channel that in some way that they are one statement or one tweet or one television program away from being a mass murderer. it polarizes us even more. in washington, d.c., james hodgkinson, who was a bernie sanders supporter and he loved rachel maddow and he loved msnbc. he took up arms and shot, almost killed represented steve scully duringhot congressman the softball game. i was not shouting up and down that we should condemn rachel maddow and that bernie sanders inspired this violence. that would be wrong. i don't know why it is equally -- not equally wrong for people
7:40 pm
to say the same thing about president trump and his reporters -- supporters. host: larry o'connor joining us. he is the host of the examining politic podcast and a radio talkshow host in washington, d.c.. our first call comes from ron. you are online with larry o'connor. go ahead. theer: has he ever read , does hearthur gelb know who that man is and how far you fall for him? thank you. i missed the last of it. host: arthur galb was the name. -- gelb was his name. guest: i'm not familiar. host: we will go to the republican line. good morning. caller: you are talking about bringing politics into this
7:41 pm
disaster, how about beto o'rourke yesterday, he called the president a white nationalists. i will bet now, he won't be able to be elected a dogcatcher. i'm so sorry, i missed the last part of the question. host: he referenced beto o'rourke's statements about the president as far as calling him a white nationalists and went on from there, saying he would not probably be elected a dogcatcher. i think that was a statement. guest: oh, i see. i missed the dogcatcher reference. of whitehis whole idea nationalism and i am seeing calls for the president to condemn white nationalism, this is politics. people are playing politics. the president has been condemning white nationalism isn he ever -- whenever he demanded to condemn white nationalism. why must one condemn something that one has never endorsed or participated in? when someone says you are a
7:42 pm
conservative, you should condemn racism, i have never participated in racism so why should i be forced to condemn racism? we can actually figure out how to solve problems in this country. it is frustrating to me. listen, i think youngest woman omar madengresswoman the same statement when she was asked to condemn al qaeda and condemn 9/11. it is frustrating when the same questions are raised and it is suggested that unless, on demand, you condemn the thing i demand you condemn, that you are in some way part and parcel to it, at what wade -- in what way do we have a substantive conversation when we force people to condemn things all the time. ? host: this is a tweet asking you directly, how can you call yourself a conservative when your party raised the debt limit instead of reducing it? guest: it is a great question.
7:43 pm
by the way, many conservatives have been condemning the republican and democratic party about spending. part of lot -- i was the tea party movement during the obama years and it was what we lead with. i was disappointed and frustrated when speaker of the house boehner campaigned on pushing back on all of those things. it in a position of prominence and importance. t pushinggned agains back on those problems and it continued to get worse. youhe tweeter said, how can be conservative when your party does this? i am a republican. if my conservative ideas and values run contrary to th what the republican party is doing, i call them out on it. i have a serious problem and we speak about it often. is it a nonissue when it
7:44 pm
comes to republicans on capitol hill? guest: i think that anybody who has the majority on capitol hill loves to spend money. it is good for business and it is good for their constituents and their district. they are not keeping and i on the future, sadly. i have to say, we have been warned about the debt problem and the spending problem for about 50 years, now. certainly my adult life, i have been hearing conversations from capitol hill about that. we keep saying and hearing it is a looming crisis and it is hanging over us. the whole house of cards is going to come tumbling down. it seems as though, as long as the economy is booming and people are working, everyone whistles pass that graveyard. i wonder what it is going to take for people to take notice of this and do something about it. sadly, in politics today, nobody wants to be the person to say we have to stop this spending, we have to stop that spending, we have to stop the spending. as soon as you cut spending, you are alienating some powerful
7:45 pm
constituency and you are facing a death sentence for your political career. i think most americans were frustrated by that. we don't elect people so they can continue to get reelected. choices,bold, tough even if it means you will lose your job. you are not hired to be a lifetime congressman or senator, you are hired to do your job based on what you campaigned on. if i can continue on that basis, i have had great admiration for nancy pelosi and the democrats in 2010, when they voted for the affordable care act, a whole chunk of them knew they were going to lose their elections. they knew they would lose their majority but they went ahead and made their vote because it ended up -- they ended up believing it. i wish republicans would make those bold, daring announcer: washington journal
7:46 pm
live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, dr. scott gottlieb, former head of the food and drug administration on why he thinks the fda needs to take more action on cannabidiol, or cbd. national reliance on mental illness senior policy advisor ronald hornburg talks about red flag laws. and as part of our podcast week, we talk with mark leon goldberg host of "the goldburg dispatches podcast." watch c-span -- washington journal 7:00 eastern. is chrisay, our guest star wall, podcast cohost of "perino instar walt, i will tell you what." on friday, jennifer briney host of "congressional dish." in 197ma:


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on