IN THE NEWS:

1. "If we finally beat Medicare"--that was one of the incomprehensible, raspy incoherent whispers of a feeble president during a televised debate last week, prompting calls by media outlets for the Democrats to dump Biden and put somebody else on the ticket. Over the weekend, the Pod Virginia All Stars addressed the topic.

2. "The best Trump rally ever"--that was how Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin described his first public appearance with the former president in Chesapeake on Friday. Trump spoke for more than 80 minutes in a rambling and disjointed speech that would have otherwise been forgettable. But because it was right after the debate and because he was on the stage with Glenn Youngkin, it actually had some resonance to it.

3. The Senate will be gaveling into session again today to debate financing for a college tuition program called the Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program. The program was created back in the 1930s to aid the families of World War I vets, and in recent years it’s been expanded to cover out-of-state residents, graduate students and relatives of service members with non-combat related injuries. That means the cost of the program has spiraled out of control from $12 million in 2019 to $65 million last year. 

At the Watercooler:

• Regarding the debate: if the media won't fact-check, then what's the point?

• Jane Mayer's "Dark Money," the impact of corporate money, and the rise of Glenn Beck a decade ago

Episode Transcript

Michael Pope

I'm Michael Pope.

Lauren Burke 

I'm Lauren Burke.

Michael Pope  

This is Pod Virginia, a podcast that is welcoming July. Lauren, it's July 2024. Half of this year is already over. 

Lauren Burke   

It's amazing how time flies. But here we are at the halfway point. 

Michael Pope  

I guess you could say the glass is half full or half empty. I like to think of myself as a glass-half-full person. So, I guess we could say that we've got half of the year still leftover. 

Lauren Burke    

Absolutely, I'm definitely a glass-half-full person. So there we are. 

Michael Pope    

Alright. Well, let's get to our first story. If we finally beat Medicare, that would be one of the incomprehensible, raspy, incoherent whispers of a feeble president during a televised debate last week. Prompting calls by the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to dump Biden and put somebody else on the ticket over the weekend. The Pod Virginia All-Stars addressed the topic of whether Democrats should put somebody else on the ticket. Delegate Alfonso Lopez was the only one to defend Biden, saying he would be a sell on the idea of replacing Biden. Delegates Cia Price and Delegate Marcus Simon both said that they were hold on that idea. Meaning they were open to the idea, at least when we recorded the episode last Friday. Here's Delegate Marcus Simon on the importance of the Biden campaign having a narrative.

Marcus Simon  

Voters don't respond to lists; they want to hear a story. The story right now about that debate is that he did not look like someone who was up to the task. Whether that's true or not, that's the story that's in people's minds. If we can't get that story out of people's minds, we need to be open to the possibility if he doesn't recover, if he doesn't get better. I mean, 80-year-old people sometimes get sick, and they don't bounce right back. So I'm gonna be a hold. I love President Biden; I love everything he's accomplished. But he's got to be able to do better.

Lauren Burke   

When Delegate Cia Price was asked whether she was a buy, sell, or hold for replacing Biden on the ticket. She also said she was on hold.

Cia Price 

If the people who were asking to vote are basing it on yesterday's performance, then we're in trouble. If we're able to come back and tell the story of what that man has done, what we as Democrats have done, and what we will do, then okay, cool. But I'm not sure where we are as a party, as a nation, or what the voters are saying just yet. So I'm going to stand on my hold. 

Michael Pope 

Just to be clear, those comments from Cia Price were recorded before that rally in Raleigh, where Biden seemed to make somewhat of a comeback. But wow, Lauren, people are buzzing about this idea that the debate was such a complete disaster that you need to take this guy off the ticket and put somebody else on there. I've covered lots of debates. I've watched lots of debates. I've never seen a debate performance that horrible, but perhaps more significantly, I've never seen a debate where the reaction was that we've got to find somebody else to run instead of this person that we just watched.

Lauren Burke  

That's primarily because this conversation is not new. It has been going on for a while. I'm sure you remember in February of 2024, when the Special Counsel put out his report on February 8th. There was this whole conversation about Biden's acuity. In fact, the White House rolled out a bunch of folks, including Vice President Harris, to say that he was really sharp in meetings. Of course, that in February 2024 was preceded by the discussion about whether or not President Biden should run again. That's one of the reasons why you see a slight sort of explosive reaction to this. I actually thought all three lawmakers made some very good points on the last show. Interestingly, Delegate Lopez was a sell. I really admire the folks in politics who just stick with the program, even though it's really difficult to do that, while everybody's pushing the other direction. Speaker Scott is doing the same thing on social media; it's really hard to do that. Because you're being a team player, but politics really requires. Particularly in the Democratic Party, with its big umbrella of interests and groups, it's really hard for everybody in the Democratic Party to stick together. Delegate Prices point to do it on communication strategy is extremely difficult. But you can see that, on the other hand, MAGA, right, does it really well. I mean, here we have a guy who is a convicted felon, who has 34 women out there accusing him of all varying degrees of sexual-related crimes, including rape. The Republican Party stands by him no matter what. Okay, it's extraordinary to watch, particularly when you see someone lying all the time, as much as he did during that debate. But I get the explosion right now because this is not a new topic. 

Michael Pope  

I hear what you're saying about Trump, and we have to keep in mind what kind of candidate he is. Voters need to be really clear about the Republican candidate in the race. But I want to focus our attention here on the Democratic candidate in the race. In the summer of 2024, we get a sense of what he looks like on television. Lauren, what happens in year two of the presidency? Year three? When he's approaching the midterms. If you think about the last years of the Reagan presidency, that's not a shining example that you would want to recreate.

Lauren Burke  

Well, I don't know that we should get that far ahead. I think in politics, it's important to deal with the race and mission in front of you. The fact of the matter is, and not to dodge your question, but in 127 days, someone is going to be elected president. The reason that I'm sort of getting away from your question a little bit is that we have a person running for president who, in fact, is not only a pathological liar but does not believe in democracy and wants to upend the Civil Service; wants to destroy the FBI and the DOJ. These are not minor concepts. They have a 900-page plan to do exactly that. Even though I do think the question of who the Democrats nominated to be president is a question that has to be dealt with, right now, there are 49 days, by the way, before the Democratic Convention in Chicago. They have to deal with this now. They have to deal with this in a very forthright and honest way. I wouldn't get so focused on what happens two years into a presidency that we may not even see.

Michael Pope  

It's a four-year term, but we're electing this guy to a four-year term.

Lauren Burke  

I understand, and also, Joe Biden, no matter what anyone wants to say, and I'll say this, I'm the youngest of three kids; I've always loved my older relatives and older people that I've had to deal with, particularly, as somebody who's been in journalism and in politics; I look for the oldest person in the room to talk to when I was on Capitol Hill, I'm looking for John Lewis; I'm looking for John Conyers; I'm looking for the oldest person because that person knows what's going on. They've seen a lot of history, and they want to talk about it. 99% of the time, they know a lot more than everybody else in the room. The idea that, wow, it was a terrible debate performance. Everybody understands that. I actually talked to a few folks that I know who are in the medical profession. In various ways, none of them treat things like mental acuity issues. But my niece is a nurse, and I know another good friend of mine who's a nurse, and they were all saying that they didn't think that was dementia. They think that when you have an older person, you've got to be very careful about what happens, particularly in the later part of the day. We have seen some reports in the last few days that President Biden does well between the hours of 10 and 5; well, I've got to ask the question to one of Delegate Price's points: why would the staff agree to a 9pm debate? Which, to me, was a little bit unusual. Usually, these debates are about eight o'clock. We even saw a few at seven o'clock but 9pm for 90 minutes. Anybody is going to be tired at that point.

Michael Pope

I was tired. 

Lauren Burke 

I was extremely tired. I had taken a nap during the day, and I was so tired. I was in a TV studio that I walked out of at 1:30am in the morning, and I felt like the staff made a few mistakes here. You don't agree to a debate with no fact-checking; you don't agree to a debate at that time of night. You should know if you are staffing an elected official, you should know what their strengths and weaknesses are. These are human beings. I know people sometimes objectify elected officials because of their titles, that is, a person that is a human being with a family and things on their minds like everybody else. Even though they may be a little smarter than most. In my experience with people I've worked with who have been extremely smart, you still have to be careful about putting them in situations that are not particularly good. I think, you know, all of us have older family members; you don't put an 81-year-old in a situation like this. That, to me, is not working in his favor. That's another thing that sort of comes to mind.

Michael Pope  

I agree with your assessment about people of advanced age; as a journalist, I always make a point of talking to the person who has been in the room the longest or the person who used to be in the room. The former Senate Majority Leader, the former Governor, and the former police chief are usually the people who have the most interesting things to say. But the counter to that is I'm going to focus your attention here on the logic of the New York Times editorial calling for Biden to step aside. The New York Times Editorial Board says Biden is engaged in a reckless gamble. It's too big a bet to simply hope that Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden's age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes. That's the real problem with this; we can't unsee what we saw last week. 

Lauren Burke 

Yeah sure. But her emails and the New York Times used to have a serious seat, and they really do. Part of the reason we are here at this moment in history is her emails, the New York Times, and their terrible reporting back in 2016; that's how we ended up with Donald Trump in the first place. This is just the height of all outrageous decision-making. I know, it's probably a different set of members of the editorial board than who was there in 2016, but only probably slightly. Give me a break, New York Times; you weren't saying that Donald Trump should withdraw after 34 counts when he's convicted. He's a convicted felon, the first in President American history, and we don't hear anything. You don't say anything when the US Capitol gets attacked, and he's standing there egging that on and not calling for the National Guard, which, of course, he lied about during the debate. If you're not saying this for Donald Trump, and I know these are different issues, I get that these are slightly different issues. But what's not different is there are very disqualifying factors about the former president, Donald Trump, and we never saw the New York Times or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution come running out after that. That's problematic. I'm not sure how they can argue that Donald Trump, with everything that we have seen and everything that he has said, gets a pass at this moment. Then, all of a sudden, we get this debate performance, and now they're calling for an unprecedented thing. It's unprecedented, by the way, for the New York Times or any other publication to call for him to withdraw from the race. 

Michael Pope  

Well, to be fair to the New York Times, their editorial calling for Biden to step aside said that Trump is also unfit for the office. They didn't call for Trump to step down from the race because he is the Republican Party, and so that would be kind of pointless. However, the same editorial that called for Biden to step aside also said that Trump was unfit and unqualified to be president. 

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, well, if they're saying that, then say it for real. Say, Look, he should step down. I think Trump is a much more, I don't think, I know Trump is a much more outrageous character than anybody we've had since probably the Civil War. I can't think of anybody more dangerous to what we are now defining as our democracy than Donald Trump. And the New York Times is well aware of that. At least be consistent, and they're not consistent. This moment, unfortunately for the Democrats, is mostly brought to us by people who are around the president and who, I think, are in denial to some degree. I think people have to be extremely honest with themselves about what they saw and whether or not President Biden can carry this campaign through the next 127 days. I think it's extremely difficult to switch candidates. There's a whole discussion here that nobody's talking about with regard to the Vice President. I'm not sure what scenario anybody comes up with where the Vice President is not involved. And if she's not involved, that kicks off another round of controversy. Even if she were to agree to stay in her position and another person were in front of her, that entire discussion would be extremely difficult. However, the first discussion would have to start with something that I think is highly unlikely, which is President Biden deciding not to run at this 11th hour: 49 days before the convention and 127 days before election day. That's difficult. And who brings that discussion to him? How does that discussion happen? Obviously, his wife, Jill Biden, is involved; his sister is involved; they're almost above staff level. But I don't see that happening. It's unprecedented. You have to figure out if it is easier to go forward. Is it easier for the Democratic Party to go forward? Or is it easier to switch him out?

Michael Pope   

You can't be somebody with a nobody. So, Trump seems to be beatable. He's a convicted felon; he's got all these negative things about what he did as president. You can make a strong case against President Trump. Unfortunately, Biden doesn't seem like the person to do that, at least not right now.

Lauren Burke  

He's absolutely beatable. But, in my view, it's really Biden's to lose. We're seeing certain stars come into alignment, which I think is worrisome for the Democrats. We've been saying for weeks now that one of the states that is in play is Virginia, or maybe it is in play. That's increasingly looking like something true as the polls come in. That's a deal breaker. If Trump were to win, Virginia that's a deal breaker. I think it's obvious to most people analyzing this that it really comes down to Michigan and Wisconsin; Biden does have a problem in Michigan with the Arab American community. There are some markers here that are difficult; I don't know that changes much if you put someone else in there. I'm just saying that if there is going to be such a monumental decision, it has to happen extremely quickly. To me, it's the type of thing that to me doesn't happen quickly. By the way, the people involved in that decision have no reason whatsoever to switch him out; that would be the staff and senior advisors of Joe Biden, all of whom would likely lose their positions in the event of a change in candidates. But I don't see it happening. That means the Democratic Party has to come up with a 127-day plan for this. It's got to be on point in a way that is of the highest urgency. This is an extraordinary situation.

Michael Pope 

You mentioned the possibility that Trump might win Virginia, which is the topic of our next story. The best Trump rally ever; that's how Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin described his first public appearance with the former president at a rally in Chesapeake last Friday. 

Donald Trump  

Hello, Virginia. Did anybody last night watch a thing called the debate? That was a big one. 

Michael Pope   

It was a big one—Trump's right about that. Here's how Congresswoman Jen Kiggans described the debate.

Jen Kiggans

I'm a geriatric nurse practitioner by trade, and I know elder abuse. And what we saw last night was definitely elder abuse.

Michael Pope 

Trump spoke for more than 80 minutes in a rambling and disjointed speech that would have otherwise been forgettable. But because it was right after the debate and because he was on stage with Glenn Youngkin, it actually had some resonance during one part of the rally. He compared the famous 19th-century defense attorney Clarence Darrow to Glenn Youngkin.

Donald Trump

You could be the late great Clarence Darrow. Has anyone ever heard of Clarence Darrow? He was known as quite a good debater. Not as good as your Governor, but that's okay. Hello, Governor. I can't miss this guy in the crowd. But his son's much better looking than him.

Michael Pope    

Youngkin took the ball and ran with it.

Glenn Youngkin

President Trump handed Joe Biden an economy with 1.4% inflation, and it took Joe Biden no time to get it to 9%. Mortgage rates were below 3%, and now they're over 7%. Gas prices are up 40%. Come on, Virginians, this is easy. Success versus failure. Strength versus weakness. 

Michael Pope   

Strength versus weakness is a very strong argument, especially after what we saw from Biden last week. Lauren, you were there at the rally in Chesapeake, so give us a sense of what it was like to be there. 

Lauren Burke  

It was definitely a show of strength on their part. They're in Chesapeake, close to the North Carolina border. There were a lot of North Carolinians at the rally. When talking to people, particularly the vendors, for some reason, the folks selling the hats and everything were from North Carolina. I really couldn't find anybody from Virginia as I was talking to everybody. But I went in there as an average person. I didn't do the press pass thing because I wanted to get the experience of being someone at the rally. I stood in line for an hour; I did all that. As I was standing there, I was talking to a lot of folks, including a lot of military people and a lot of the US Navy. My sister was in the US Navy for 20 years, so I was talking to folks about that. They were talking about their naval experience. There was a gentleman I met from Williamsburg who served in Vietnam; he was in the 82nd Airborne. It was so crowded, in fact, that I would say about 200 or 300 people didn't get in through the security cordon, which was controlled by TSA; there were enough TSA folks there. Still, it took forever to get into the area where you're watching the speech. But thank goodness it was cloudy out; it was a very hot day. I think it was a show of strength from Trump's campaign. To me, the saddest part there was Glenn Youngkin. I was sort of standing in the big group of people waiting to get in; he started speaking. I knew this was probably some sort of VP tryout type thing; sure enough, it was. He pretty much said everything he generally said at other rallies I've been at since he was running in 2021. The thing that he added that I thought was particularly noteworthy was the immigration piece; he effectively said exactly what Trump has been saying. He fully embraced the language that joins immigrants to sexual violence and criminality. Specifically, immigrants from Mexico use an anecdotal story of violence; someone killed somebody to vilify and criminalize millions of other people. That was a sad, new addendum to what Youngkin typically says. I don't think I've ever heard him say that before. This is the first time that he's been on stage with President Trump. So that was an interesting moment.

Michael Pope  

You mentioned the language around immigration and Mexico in terms of what Youngkin said. In his comments. Trump focused his attention on Venezuela. This was an 80-minute-long speech. Even for people who are tuned in and interested in this stuff, that's a lot of time. In this long speech from former President Trump, one of the things he focused on was a racist lie about Venezuela emptying its prisons and mental institutions and sending those people to America.

Lauren Burke   

Yeah, well, yours truly bolted about halfway through that. Because I'm not getting caught in traffic, I'm getting out of there. About the halfway point for Trump, which I thought was the halfway point, it was actually just the beginning. It was an incredibly long speech, and of course, it was his typical rambling, ranting, and disjointed with flecks of racism. There was the Venezuela reference. Every person of color they referenced was glued. I say they were glued because Governor Youngkin did the same thing; they were glued to criminality. Think about the fact for a second that in 2021, Glenn Youngkin ran against Donald Trump. He effectively ran to try to keep Donald Trump out of Virginia, and he successfully did so. John Frederick and the gang were trying to bind them together, but Youngkin's campaign kept him out. He has a lieutenant governor, Winsome Sears, who wants absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, who was not there. Attorney General Jason Miyares was at the rally, and he got up for a second to speak. He was standing next to Trump and all that lot, of course, Republicans there, as you might imagine. Winsome Sears, the lieutenant governor, was not there, but Youngkin's brand has now ended. I know a lot of people say Oh, but no, he was always like that. I'm saying just that from a factual matter, that's not how he campaigned. He campaigned as a moderate, reasonable Republican who's not crazy like these MAGA people. Now, he's thrown all that in the garbage to try to become the next vice president. I would be shocked if Trump chose him as the next vice president. As I think a lot of Virginia Politico know, Chris LaCivita is a senior adviser to Donald Trump, and he's from Virginia. So I think we're going to see a lot more events with the former president in Virginia. That one was packed. They did have a vending area that, in itself, was a thing of all the merchandise and everything else.

Michael Pope 

Let me ask you about that; you mentioned that you were talking with the vendors. I've had the same experience where you go to events, and the vendors are easier to talk to. I'm talking about vendors that sell Trump stuff, like MAGA hats, flags, and stuff like that. I've got some theories about that; it's possible the vendors are not necessarily true believers. They're not really there to get Trump elected, and or they just don't care about it. Then also, as people who are selling stuff, it's in their interest to be chatty, talkative, and pleasant with people. The psychology of selling stuff is such that they actually often pick up on stuff that's going on in the crowd. The vendors are actually good people to talk to. Well, I should say it this way: they are a good source of information for those kinds of events. What was your experience in this area? Were all the vendors sort of grouped together in that area?

Lauren Burke   

I was talking to the vendors because 90% of them were Black. I was trying to figure out exactly what you just referred to; are you here just to sell stuff? Or do you actually believe in Donald Trump? I couldn't figure that out. I think you're right to your point; I think in a lot of cases, if it was a Joe Biden event, they'd be selling stuff. I couldn't figure it out. But none of them, I couldn't find anybody from Virginia. I was actually trying to find folks who were African American, supporting Trump from Virginia, and that was really hard to deal with. At first, it was hard to find Black people at all, but then it was hard to find people who were from Virginia. At any rate, I think that the vending area was kind of more like when you go to a rock concert; the swag is sometimes in an area, or you go to a convention or sort of an outdoor event. All the swag is in an area near the food and all that. They had that set up really and organized really well. I gotta say this, I think one of the fears in the Republican Party is if the Democrats switch off to Biden to someone else, like Gavin Newsom or the Vice President, they're gonna have to change all the merchandise because all the merchandise, is very negative toward Joe Biden. All that Brandon stuff is going to have to go out the window. I talked to these guys for a while. I asked them, do you travel to every event? Do you travel to every rally that Trump does? Sometimes, depending on where it was. I talked to the other folks who are not vendors who are there. It is interesting to see how much is military, but I shouldn't be surprised. We're in Virginia, and a lot of military, and I felt like it was a very male crowd. In fact, at one point, one of the songs that was played before everyone started speaking between speakers was Macho Man by the Village People. I thought that was a particularly appropriate song. It was a lot of army people, a lot of police, that type of crowd, and nothing wrong with that. But it's just interesting to note.

Michael Pope  

One thing that I noticed while watching it on television was the crowd behind Trump. The modern rally is not just a candidate on the stage; it's a candidate on the stage. In the television frame, there are people behind the candidate in the rally, looking at the back of the speaker's head. I thought it was really interesting that in that TV frame, I saw three Black faces. Did that indicate what the crowd actually looked like? 

Lauren Burke  33:03

No, that's actually usually just a setup. There's a group, Blacks for Trump; I think they're based in Florida; they travel all around. I've talked to those guys; they are just some Black dudes that they found. There's one guy who is a spokesperson. I get the sense that the other fellows are just random, and they give them a t-shirt to wear to stand behind the former president. Like that's what that is. Then you just have what I was looking for: the folks who are just interested in or supporting President Trump are coming in and don't fit what I think most people would see as the stereotypical Trump supporter. But there weren't that many Black folks there. I would say if there were 2000 people at that rally, I actually tried to count the number of Black folks, and it was probably about maybe 30, or 40, something like that. I don't think any of that is particularly scientific. Some of the people I spoke to, like I said, it was hard to find somebody from Virginia. But it was what you would see at a typical political rally, not as big as some of the Obama rallies in Virginia back in 2007 and 2008. Nowhere near that, and I've been to almost all of those. I've been to a ton of political rallies. I like to see the thing up close. Still, I would say that if I were the Democratic Party in Virginia, you would want to get in gear because there's definitely energy on the Republican side. I think that was pretty obvious from the size of that crowd in the determination; frankly, people were standing out in the sun for an hour. There were several women with babies standing in the sun. It was a fairly cloudy day. It wasn't like 100 degrees with no clouds, but it was hot. People were willing to go through all of that and wait. You know, in some cases, it wasn't two hours to get in there.

Michael Pope    

Well, let's move on to our next story. Tuition benefits the Senate will be gaveling into session today. Once again, we need to debate financing for a college tuition program called the Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program. This is a program that was created back in the 1930s to benefit families of World War One vets. In recent years, it's been expanded to cover out-of-state residents, graduate students, and even relatives of servicemembers with noncombat-related injuries. That means the cost of the program has spiraled out of control from $12 million in 2019 to $65 million last year; here's Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell.

Scott Surovell 

It's been a very popular program—in fact, it's been too popular, and it's caused many unintended consequences; it's grown to 400% of what the cost was projected to be just three years ago. And leaving it open for another year or two just caused it to continue to grow exponentially and make it even harder to address. 

Lauren Burke   

That's why Senators were trying to figure out a way to add some restrictions to the program. However, the idea that the tuition benefits would be scaled back is receiving strong pushback from people like Katrina Frye, an Army vet from Salem, who says her son might not be able to receive benefits depending on which version of the program is funded. 

Katrina Frye

They picked on the wrong group of people, veterans; we stick together; we're from all the branches, and we are from all over the state. And this was a promise given to us. This is something we've earned. It is not something that should be so lightly taken away.

Michael Pope   

Okay, she says so lightly, taken away. It's worth remembering that the reason we're having this debate over the restrictions is that it was a last-minute decision made in the budget deliberations process. Which was a secret that was not open to the public and was not vetted because they didn't have time to vet it because they did it in secret. This is something that listeners have heard me complain about many times on the podcast. The secretive nature of so much of our Virginia government. This takes the cake; this was the most secretive because you're taking the entire budget and doing it behind closed doors in a way that doesn't even vet it with all the lawmakers. It's really done by a handful of people, and they screwed this up, they really screwed this up. Now they're trying to dig themselves out of the stupid hole that they've created with our secret government. They can't agree with each other. The House wants to repeal all the restrictions, which is very expensive. The Senate says that's not really economically viable. In order to save the program, you have to figure out how to do it in a way that Virginia can actually afford to do it. Right now, Lauren, no one is backing off of their positions.

Lauren Burke  

Right, and because it's veterans, and this is Virginia, the last place you want to be politically is questioning anything that would benefit veterans. The only thing is the program is actually for the survivors of the veterans, not the actual veterans, such as the GI program. The other big problem is that these numbers are not sustainable. The program four years ago was $5.4 million and is now $45 million. That is not sustainable. Covering people who are outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia, covering people for advanced degrees, law degrees, etc., and so on is an interesting question. That's something that should be questioned by somebody who is fiscally responsible.

Michael Pope  

What you just outlined is who actually gets the benefit. Is it the relative of the veteran? Or does the veteran have to have a combat injury? Or do you give it to the relative of the person who's non-combat injury? These are the kind of gradations that the senators are interested in having a conversation about; the House members are saying, let's not even have that conversation. Let's repeal all the restrictions and just have the program the way it is currently.

Lauren Burke  

Well, they're gonna have to have that conversation because this is a thing that has expanded in a really large way. I think that the Governor of Carlisle would care about fiscal responsibility. He talks about it all the time. Certainly, everybody cares about veterans. I've got five veterans in my family, including my sister, my nephew, and my cousin, who graduated from West Point. My nephew was in the army in Afghanistan and Iraq; I think certainly he should get the benefits; my sister should get the benefit because they're veterans. It's interesting to extend a program to family members who may or may not be veterans. That's interesting. Obviously, the GI program covers our veterans, the folks who fought and risked their lives for this country. I think they should get everything that we can give them. I found it interesting that no one flinches at the idea of the extension of family members. The disability issues is another interesting issue because for disability, in my mind when I hear disability, the stereotypical picture that pops into my mind is what I see on Memorial Day at the Capitol at the US Capitol, which is people who are in wheelchairs who have lost a limb, that type of combat injury. PTSD, of course, is a major combat injury that no one can see as easily. But, this program is very broad. From what I'm hearing, it covers everything from carpal tunnel to things that most people might not consider the type of injury; it should cover millions and millions of dollars. The thing that comes to my mind is UVA; this would cover a UVA law degree. Well, an in-state UVA law degree costs $72,000 a year. If you have that law degree from UVA, one of the best law schools in the country, and you come out of that law school, you're probably, at minimum, on your first year out, going to make over $200,000. That person can pay for that. This program is paying for that person's law degree, who, by the way, may or may not have served. Again, this is not a program for the veteran; it's for the family members who may or may not be in Virginia. That's an interesting thing. The veteran may not be in Virginia, or the person may not be in Virginia. To my understanding, this should be a Virginia-based program. 

Michael Pope 

In terms of the timeline, it's worth remembering that this program that we're talking about for the survivors and dependents predates the GI Bill. This benefit that we're talking about is from 1930. It's been around longer than the GI bill. It was for an earlier generation of World War One vets. That's what this was created for the families of the World War One vets. That timeline is worth thinking about in terms of the politics. The House met last week; I was there in the House chamber. They said Hell NO to these restrictions; they unanimously supported a bill; all the Democrats and all the Republicans voted for this bill to repeal all the restrictions, where there are no new restrictions at all. It's just the way the program was before this ridiculous secret government budget they created recently. So that's the House position, it's also the Governor's position. The Senate's position is that it's not responsible; we need to put off the scalpel and figure out a way to make this economically viable. The Senate is going to be in session today; they're probably going to have some sort of proposal worked out to create some new restrictions and make sure this program doesn't bust the bank. But Lauren, what is the House going to do about that? Is the House ever going to vote in favor of the restrictions that come out of the Senate? Or is this in intractable deadlock indefinitely? How does this work out?

Lauren Burke  

I don't have an answer to that. But I do know this, and I think everyone involved knows this; the math is explosive. The math is absolutely explosive. Obviously, the Republicans are trying to trap the Democrats with oh, you voted against something for veterans? Of course, they're going to do that. It's an easy thing to sell from a communication standpoint; you voted against veterans, and you voted against this benefit. You've got the Governor's PR firm helping out with that effort. 

Michael Pope 

You've also got the public speaker at the hearing on Friday, who used language about Senate Finance Chairwoman Louise Lucas that we probably shouldn't even say on this podcast.

Lauren Burke  

Yeah. How about that? That's another thing. I get everybody's wants to be emotional and all that. But the money is not sustainable. The financial issue here is not sustainable. Somebody has to figure that out and answer those questions. It's a broad program question; should it be that broad? We can pay for some people, but I don't know if they can pay for everybody. Advanced degrees, particularly in fields that are extremely lucrative for people who may or may not be veterans, are extremely lucrative. If this is the GI Bill, which, by the way, the GI Bill was restrictive to Black World War Two veterans, but that's another story. The point is, currently, the GI Bill, everyone is for that, and it's all good. These are people who have served our country; whether they were injured or not, I don't even think that matters. You served our country; you risked your life for our country. Yeah, we should pay their tuition. But from a Republican standpoint, this is extremely interesting because now they want to pay for people who may or may not be in the military, who are the dependents of those people. The same Republican Party that pushes extremely hard against any free tuition programs. Any sort of Joe Biden is paying tuition, debt relief, or any of that. Republicans stand against that, but they're for this because it allows them to mark it against the Democratic Party, that they are against veterans. Well, nobody's against veterans. Give me a break. Nobody in the Virginia General Assembly, whether you served or not, is against veterans. Many of these members, in fact, particularly in the Senate, with these bigger districts, have a military facility in their district, but I get it; I get the PR move that the Republicans are making. I would love for Governor Youngkin to explain how this will be paid for and what the math behind it is. He worked at Carlisle; he should be aware of what an unfunded mandate looks like. It would be interesting if you could answer that question. To your point of the secrecy of this, nobody knew about it when it got added. It would've been good to know about it at that point because someone has to ask the Governor, well, how is all this getting paid for? It's an interesting problem.

Michael Pope 

All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we will play a round of trivia and head over to the water cooler.

All right, it's time to play some trivia. Last week, we asked you which Virginia constitution granted men who did not own property the right to vote.

Lauren Burke  

The answer is the 1851 Constitution, which is sometimes called the Reformed Constitution. It allowed for universal manhood suffrage and the popular election of the Governor. And we have a winner: Jimmy Rogers, the great Jimmy Rogers, was the first person to get the answer.

Michael Pope   

Happy Constitution Day to the great Jimmy Rogers.

Lauren Burke   

All right. What's our trivia question for next week?

Michael Pope  

We had a discussion on our game show about the state pollinator, which is the European honeybee. On the topic of official state this and official state that, I have a question about the official state beverage. Lauren, you probably know that the official state beverage is milk. But when did Virginia declare that to be the official state beverage? Looking for the year that the General Assembly sent a bill to the Governor, and the Governor put his signature on a bill designating milk as the official state drink of Virginia? 

Lauren Burke  

If you think you know the answer, hit us up on social media; you might even win a prize. 

Michael Pope  

Let's head over to the water cooler. Lauren, what's the latest you're hearing around the water cooler?

Lauren Burke  

Ah, well, not to drag us back into the debate question. But I'm going to drag us back into the debate question between Biden and Trump. Look, we need to ask the question at some point, what is the point of journalism if we're not verifying what is true and what is false? If we're not fact-checking, if the truth doesn't matter, then really, I'm asking the question, what is the point of journalism? I was absolutely stunned when we first heard that CNN agreed to some version of these debates, not having any fact-checking. I actually thought to myself, that can't possibly be what's about to happen. But yet that's exactly what happened. We had Donald Trump lying the entire time about all sorts of things, including the attack on the US Capitol. Certain things that Speaker Pelosi never said, certain things that never happened involving Muriel Bowser asking for the National Guard, which, by the way, involved Virginia a little bit because they ended up panic calling then Governor Ralph Northam for assistance from the Virginia National Guard. He just lied. Not only was he lying the whole time, but apparently, there was no requirement during this debate to answer a question. This was basically, okay, we're going to ask you guys some stuff, and you can answer or not. I said to myself, well, we could just have Vanna White come out here with a question on a card. Anybody could just off-read the questions. I mean, what did you need the journalist for if they're not going to fact-check? If they're not going to require the candidates to answer the question. That's my watercooler. It's basically a rant. I think what just happened represents the end of journalism in terms of real purpose. I find that flabbergasting. It's a shameful moment for CNN. And what say you, Michael?

Michael Pope    

Wow, that's the end of journalism. I'm going to just ignore that and address other things that you just said because that's too depressing to even think about. CNN not doing fact-checking things. Okay, in retrospect, huge mistake. Everybody is now yelling at CNN about this, which is clearly a dumb decision. But I think about before the debate, the logic could have been, and I'm not defending this decision; I would have argued against it. But let's go through the motions here of trying to think about what the executives could have possibly had in mind if the moderators did the fact-checking instead of Biden doing the fact-checking. If the moderators did the fact-checking, they would look like they were taking sides, and you'll recall that in the 2012 election cycle, CNN moderator Candy Crowley did a questionable fact-check of Mitt Romney in real time. Mitt Romney said something; Candy Crowley did a fact check, but then, as it turns out, because it was in real-time, she didn't really have an opportunity to research it. Her fact-check was a little wobbly; it wasn't great. So what you don't want is real-time moderators to do a fact check; that's bad. That would have been horrible and really screwed things up. I get the sense that what happened here was not a decision that Jake Tapper made. This is not a decision that Danna Bash made. This is a decision that CNN executives made. And my guess is that a lot of people internally at CNN said that it's a horrible idea. We can't do this; we have to fact-check; it's journalism. All the stuff that you just said, Lauren, which I think a lot of people see and would agree with. The executives decided it would be a bad idea. I imagine in my head that part of their thinking behind that was, well, if the best person to fact-check Trump is Biden.

Lauren Burke    

Yeah, I've heard that. Oh, well, why didn't Biden fact-check him? I got a Republican on my Twitter account that said to me, Well, if Biden could have just fact-checked him. I responded to them, and I said Look, basically, what you're saying is your candidate is too lazy to correct this torrent of habitual pathological lying, and that's your fault. No, this is a news organization. The job of the news organization is to protect the truth, find out what the truth is, and, in many cases, tell the public what that is. That's a basic tenant of journalism. Now everybody's going to act like, Oh, my goodness, oh, boy, dammit, now we've got to do fact-checking like that some burden? Is that an inconvenient thing to do? That's what you should be doing as a basic tenet of journalism. I'm not buying into this, but if Biden had just fact-checked him. First of all, Biden would have had to spend all night correcting him. The format of these debates is that you have a one-minute response or a two-minute response. Frankly, I'm gonna go there, I think these executives of CNN want Trump to win because Trump makes them money. He makes them tons of money. He just made them money in the last four years that he was there. Les Moonves, who was at another network, CBS, basically said the quiet part out loud, that oh, yeah, he's good for business. So, I have a hard time completely believing it, given the financial situation of CNN and the viewership of CNN, which is behind Fox and MSNBC. That one of the factors in their head wasn't a fear of right-wing MAGA Trump supporters getting mad at the network. Remember when CNN took that whole big turn toward being more like Fox? That was another sign of this. I think they have a fear of Trump supporters. They didn't want to piss the Trump supporters off by fact-checking somebody that everybody knows is a pathological liar. Trump's people, who got them to agree to this, know that he is a liar. If you have somebody doing fact-checking, which, by the way, CNN has a great reporter who does fact-checking, Daniel Dale, who they had on after the debate, which, of course, was sort of comical; he should have been a part of the entire night. But I think there's something more sinister going on here. Because the money tells me they're doing what would make them money. I find it to be like saying, you want to be a football player in the NFL, but you don't want to get tackled, or you're allergic to pig skin or something like that. I mean, that's an essential part of playing football. That's what you have to do. You get tackled if you're running back, and you get hit on every play. So journalists can't be in a situation where they say, Yeah, we want to be journalists. We want to have a debate. This is a serious time, and our democracy is on the line, but we're not going to fact-check anything. So Michael, what about you? What are you hearing around the watercooler? 

Michael Pope  

Well, I'm going to take us away from the debate and focus on something that happened not a huge amount of time ago, probably a decade ago or so. I read this when I was on vacation at the beach. I did not read trashy fiction. I know that's really popular at the beach, and sometimes I read trash fiction there. Instead, I read a great book I highly recommend, Lauren. I think you've read it; it's called Dark Money by Jane Mayer; the subtitle of the book is The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Fascinating book. There's part of this that really made my blood boil, though. This is kind of related to our last discussion of journalism because it's about a guy named Glenn Beck, who at the time was one of the top guys at Fox News. He had the five o'clock hour, and he said some crazy ass shit on his five o'clock hour. The show that he used to have was really insane, which is why Fox fired him. He's still around; he owns his own network, which I think probably doesn't get a lot of traffic. So Glenn Beck is still around and kind of part of the scene here. But this kind of stuff that Jane Mayer talks about in her book is just, wow, I could not believe it. This is part of a chapter of the book where she talks about how these corporations are trying to influence the debate over everything from climate change to democracy to environmental stuff to everything. This basically revealed what was happening that led to the creation of the Tea Party. So, this is the chapter explaining the dark origins of the Tea Party. So there's this shadowy white right-wing group called Freedom Works, and they want to influence the thinking of Glenn Beck. So when Glenn Beck goes on Fox News Live at Five o'clock every day, he would spout information that was helpful and useful to Freedom Works. This is the part of the Jane Mayer book that I want to read a couple paragraphs here and talk about this quote. This is from the Jane Mayer book, quote FreedomWorks; it was later revealed, also with hired help, the tax-exempt organization quietly cemented a deal with Glenn Beck, the incendiary right-wing Fox News television host who at the time was a tea party superstar for an annual payment that eventually topped $1 million Beck read embedded content, written by the Freedom Works staff, they told him what to say on the air and he blended the promotional material seamlessly with his monologue. Making it sound as if it were his own opinion. The arrangement was described on Freedom Works tax disclosures as advertising services. The exec from Freedom Works said we thought it would be a useful tool if it was done in moderation, but then it started doing it by leaps and bounds. They were keeping it secret from their activists and their supporters. The arrangement was described by Freedom Works seamlessly into his monologue, making it sound as if it were his own opinions; the arrangement was described on FreedomWorks tax closure as advertising services. Lauren, I shouldn't let this stuff bother me. But it really does; here is this shadowy right-wing group that's not just buying power and influence; they are telling somebody what to say on television as if it were his own opinion. Maybe the reason that I'm reacting to this this way is that I know a lot of people who don't understand how the media works. That's how they think the media works. This is the sort of comical conspiracy theory version where Lauren Burke and Michael Pope are at a morning conference committee meeting, where the shadowy group that runs the deep state tells us what we should say. Not only is it horrible, but it gives a really bad impression of what it means to do journalism. 

Lauren Burke  

Absolutely. Yeah, there's actually been a few. First of all, Jane Mayer is one of my favorite investigative journalists. That book is incredible. And everything she does, frankly, is incredible. She's just an unbelievable journalist. But at any rate, we've seen a few examples of this before. In fact, David Folkenflik, over at NPR, did a piece on this very thing embedded content that was paid for by some corporation. You also might remember that in Virginia, we had a columnist for The Virginia Pilot who was getting paid by Dominion to write very nice things about Dominion. By the way, if Dominion wants to do it, that's fine. I'm questioning the Virginia Pilot. Why wasn't the Virginia Pilot transparent about that, or did they not know about it? Then, of course, Virginian Pilot gets contacted by a reporter and then goes silent. We're seeing that type of thing pop up. There are also articles that I've seen come out where I couldn't prove it because I would need a subpoena to get into somebody's bank account. But you see certain articles that pop up that are just too well-timed and are written exactly as if it was the PR person. And you say to yourself, why would some columnist, usually a columnist or freelancer, why would somebody write that? Why would they wake up in the morning writing the exact same thing that some political entity would want to be written? It just seems a little bit suspicious. Again, because journalism doesn't have any rules, and they're, frankly, no standards because the First Amendment sort of makes it that anybody can do anything as long as it's speech, and it's free and all that. This has become a problem because there are no guardrails for it.

Michael Pope  

We need some happier topics for our water cooler. After we're done with our water cooler. All right, Lauren, let's go ahead and open up that Pod Virginia mailbag. What are our listeners talking about?

Lauren Burke  

Well, we're hearing about everyone's favorite Canadian, Cameron Thompson of CBS 6 in Richmond. He filled in as a guest host last week, and our listeners have some thoughts about his views on hockey. 

Michael Pope  

Yeah, so when I heard the episode, I literally laughed out loud when I heard him launch into a discussion of hockey. How stereotypical is it? Here come the Canadian guys, gonna talk about hockey? Very, very brand. 

Lauren Burke  

Absolutely, and talking about hockey with someone who knows nothing about hockey makes it even more amusing. Mr. posted this on social media quote, let's go, Rangers; love you, Lauren, get that Canadian off my Virginia politics feed.

Michael Pope 

Well, I disagree with that. Let's keep our favorite Canadian. Hopefully, I will be able to persuade him to return to Pod Virginia at some point. I thought he did a great job. Cameron, thank you so much for filling it out. And hopefully, we will get you back on the show sometime soon. I'd love some feedback from our listeners. Who else do you think might make a good guest host?

Lauren Burke  

Some so many people would make good guests. I actually think Speaker Scott would make a great guest host.

Michael Pope  

Switching between the guest and the host, right? You're right. Speaker Scott would be a great guest host, but he's probably the kind of person you want to hit up with the hard questions. When he appears on the show, we want to hit him up with our hard questions. The thing about being a guest host is you're in a position where you have to respond to stuff. We're talking about the New York Times editorial. You might have to say something about the New York Times editorial. We're talking about Jane Mayer, and you might have to say something about Jane Mayer. I'm saying it's a little bit of a grab bag of everything that's going on.

Lauren Burke  

Yeah, but as a guest host, you can control the topics. So, if you want to talk about hockey, for example, you just add that in there, and there's that.

Michael Pope  

All right, let's celebrate some birthdays this week.

Lauren Burke 

Today, Monday, July 1st, is the birthday of Pod Virginia All-Star Marcus Simon, also known as Delegate Marcus Simon.

Michael Pope  

A great birthday present for you, Delegate Simon; you have a podcast with your voice on it from over the weekend. You can listen to the podcast over and over again and hear the sound of your voice on Pod Virginia. That's your birthday, president. Tuesday, July 2nd, is the birthday of Delegate Buddy Fowler of Hangover.

Lauren Burke    

Love it. That is it for this episode of Pod Virginia.