Our Political Resolutions for 2021

Copy of PantsuitPolitics21.jpg

Topics Discussed:

  • Lightning Round News Update

  • Our 2021 Political Resolutions

  • Moment of Hope

  • Covid-19 Relief Bill & National Defense Authorization Act

  • Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House Election

  • Certification of the Election Results

  • Trump Call to Brad Raffensperger

  • Covid-19 Vaccine Rollout

  • Russian Infrastructure Hack

  • Brexit Deal

  • Outside of Politics

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for daily news briefs, GIF news threads, and our real time reactions to breaking news. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

Congressional Updates:

Vaccine Distribution:

Russian Hacking:

Brexit:

Outside of Politics:

Transcript:

[00:00:00] Sarah: [00:00:00] And that's what I'm just trying. I'm just trying to find some space. I am anticipating that Donald Trump leaving office on January 20th is going to open up a lot of space in my brain, in my schedule, in my social media feed.

This is Sarah 

Beth: [00:00:21] and Beth. 

Sarah: [00:00:21] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics. 

Beth: [00:00:23] The home of grace filled political conversations

Oh my goodness, we're so happy that you're here. If you are new here, welcome. We like to say that we host the largest political support group on the internet. We are here to help each other and all of you process the news and hopefully just inch closer to a political reality that we can [00:01:00] all agree on. 

Sarah: [00:01:01] We have an amazing community of supporters on Patreon.

If you would like to head over to patreon.com and check out the Nightly Nuance that Beth puts together Monday through Thursday. We're active on Instagram and Twitter. You can subscribe to our weekly newsletter, check out our incredible merch or learn more about the extra credit book club subscription on our website at pantsuitpoliticsshow.com. And here we are Beth. We made it to 2021 

Beth: [00:01:25] Happy New Year. I'm excited to be here, even though it is a difficult time. And so we're going to try to be really intentional about how we start the year today. We both made some political resolutions. As we talk through those, some contexts that we're keeping in mind. December was the deadliest month of the pandemic.

And we both have personal experience with the pandemic. So if you're a new listener, I'll share that my mother got COVID-19 in September, both my mother and father, my mother has rheumatoid arthritis and a host of related [00:02:00] conditions. She spent 15 days hospitalized, three months on supplemental oxygen and is still doing daily physical therapy to cope with its impacts. 

I was telling Sarah before we started recording that mom is not doing well and we're struggling with how to talk about it because we are so grateful that she's alive. We're so grateful for the care she received. We know our family has been in many ways lucky. My dad's case of COVID was relatively mild, but my dad is struggling to sleep still and my mom has an enormous amount of pain from COVID related inflammation. 

And so it's been a very long road for our family and our family has been blessed in the American landscape because so many people have suffered so much worse than we have. 

Sarah: [00:02:44] And over the Christmas break, my father was diagnosed with COVID-19. He is still in his quarantine period.

Thank God. He has so far not needed to go to the hospital or be under any sort of intense care. He seems to have [00:03:00] a mild case. Um, I make him send me his pulse sock reading, like every two hours. Um, and so we're staying pretty steady, but, um, it was incredibly scary and I still have a lot of fear surrounding his recovery and exactly what you articulated with your own parents' journey.

I just think that we have this narrative that as soon as people are free to move about in the world after having COVID, that their journey is over um, and that's just not the case. I was speaking to a relative who said, Oh yeah, I had a mild case and then, um, went on to explain how one of her normal daily activities was a grind and she almost burst into tears trying to do that activity cause she was just so worn out and I thought like, man, and then you didn't have a mild case. Right? 

So I think that we, we sort of detach those two things when really they're related and we need to have so much, um, grace and care for people as [00:04:00] they continue to deal with COVID days, weeks, months after, um, the initial positive test.

Beth: [00:04:07] So COVID always on our minds.

On Sunday, the house came into new session. Speaker Pelosi was reelected. As we're recording today on Monday, we expect President Trump to hold a rally in Dalton, Georgia. That seems like it's going to be a doozy. On Tuesday as you're hearing this, uh, the Georgia runoffs will be taking place, although 3 million people have already voted in Georgia, well done early voters in this runoff election.

And it will be interesting to see what the turnout looks like and how those two really crucial Senate races to the balance of power shake out. Wednesday, Congress will certify the election results. We'll talk much more about that in a few minutes, and I don't want to lose sight, even though this is very dark of the [00:05:00] fact that the Trump administration has been very focused in its final months on conducting federal executions.

Three people are scheduled to be executed in January before the inauguration. Lisa Marie Montgomery, who we've talked about before on the 12th, Corey Johnson on the 14th and Dustin, John Higgs on the 15th and I think that matters to our national consciousness and who we are as a country. 

Sarah: [00:05:24] So before we deep dive on the congressional update, we're going to talk about Brexit.

We wanted to share our political resolutions for 2021. What we learned from 2020 about how we approach the news, how we think about our political landscape and just the reality of being an American in this, in this current historical cool moment. I think for me, one of my big political resolutions as I think back on 2020 and I think about how I [00:06:00] want to approach 2021, is I'm trying to slow down.

 For better or for worse, the impact of the last four years of Donald Trump and the chaos he has created is this just intensity. Um, you know, it's like we were trained to check Twitter and to think the next New York times update was going to be uh, life or death, crazy norm busting, historical, all these things. And it's, it's really hard to get out of that cycle. And so I'm really trying hard to slow down because I have the instinct to rush to, to get out of it, right. To get out of the Trump era, to get out of the pandemic, to just go forward, go forward, go forward.

He's done. He's irrelevant. Moving on. And I'm trying to both stay focused on, um, what's still happening with the Trump presidency and [00:07:00] with the pandemic, and also like slow down and not turn from the consequences of those things just because they're hard. Because I think part of what we got trained to do over the last four years is, well, you don't have to deal with the difficulty of this because there will be another impossibly difficult thing in 30 seconds.

And it's like, our attention span has just shrunk so much that I'm really focusing on slowing down and diving in. So even if it's hard, even if it's difficult, even if I want to turn away, even if my brain's telling me, don't worry, another, thing's going to come in just a minute, I'm trying to focus on the consequences of Trump, as much as I'd like to shut the book on him and move on, um, focus on what COVID has revealed about our institutions, even though I desperately want COVID to just be over.

 I mean, it's sort of the co the lesson [00:08:00] of individual recoveries from COVID is applicable to our wider landscape, right? That is not, it's not over when it's over. That, those, that what we've learned and what we will continue to have revealed to us is still relevant. And that's what I'm just trying to build that muscle back up cause I feel like it really, really fell out of use during the last four years.

Beth: [00:08:27] That relates to where I am. I hear you talking about fighting instincts. This is what I feel pulled to. How do I overcome that? And one of the things that I am very prone to is wishful thinking.

It should be this way so it will be. I trust the Supreme court, for example, I trust our institutions and I'm glad that I do. I think sometimes if you look at political Twitter, and one thing I've been thinking a lot about is like, who is that for? But when you look at political Twitter, there are sort of the camps of the [00:09:00] alarmist and the anti alarmist.

And I don't want to be either one of those things, but I do probably trend toward anti alarmist too much. And I especially do that in my life. So when I think about people and their motivations, I put a real gloss on it. Sometimes a gloss that's pretty condescending. Well, if they only knew more, they would think this, if they only understood X Y Z then they would come around to my version of things. 

And so I'm trying to do less wishful thinking and, and be more focused as you were saying on the consequences of what's happened on the ramifications of it on the fallout, on the challenges that we're still combating. In the vein of applying that to the present moment, I've also been thinking a lot about my values, what are my big picture governmental values.

And I do really value living in a representative democracy. And so I want to keep [00:10:00] that orientation to process and keep myself in the discipline of recognizing that a truly representative government is going to have a lot of people in it who say, and do things that I think are outrageous because I trended too much last year, I think, toward these people have no place here, in a lot of different spaces. And I don't want to be that. 

I think that there are ideas that have no place here and I want to work against those ideas, but there, there will always be ideas that I don't like in a truly representative democracy. You and I talk about expanding the number of representatives in the house pretty often.

There will be even more extreme versions of ideas in an expanded house, probably more moderates and more extremists, right? Because you just add more people and you get more representative of America, the spectrum will be present and I want [00:11:00] to get right with that. 

And then the other instinct of mine that I'm fighting against, I think it's so interesting that we both may list about kind of fighting some of our natural tendencies is, um, my instinct to critique an idea right away, instead of just stepping back and valuing the idea and really asking the best questions I can about ideas. 

So instead of dismissing out of hand, because I think well the federal government shouldn't be doing this or that would never work or that can't scale, or all of the no's that come to mind for me, really just giving space around ideas, because I think we're at a moment that requires a lot of ideas and, and I love ideas. So I want to give myself permission not to go into, um, critique mode immediately. And really just be more curious about the solutions that people are offering to some really complicated problems. 

Sarah: [00:11:53] Well, I think we've seen over the last, you know, four years, [00:12:00] how quickly ideas become reality, how quickly we went from introducing the idea of universal basic income and the government just sending us checks, which seemed outlandish at the time we started talking about it to a presidential candidate that advocated that to checks going out during COVID relief.

Right. I mean, I just. The pace is so quick. And so I think the idea of space is incredibly important and that's what I'm just trying. I'm just trying to find some space. I am anticipating that Donald Trump leaving office on January 20th is going to open up a lot of space in my brain, in my schedule, in my social media feed, not just to move on and never think about him, but to deeply think about the problems he created, the problems he exposed, um, the, the political realities [00:13:00] of how our fellow citizens feel and see and experience the world.

And I'm just trying to find some space for that because my, you know, My instinct is this sort of, um, pragmatism much of what you articulating like, well, that won't work or that's not relevant. And it's like, you see us battling that right now I think with the certification process, like if it won't become a reality wise, why, why are we still talking about it?

And I think that just giving some breathing room for that, that can't be summed up um, In a tweet or in a headline, to make space for conversations for, I don't know for, we haven't figured this out for this, as you know, my, my most difficult space to hold is this is a deeply, deeply [00:14:00] problematic issue that will not be solved in my lifetime. 

That's, it's hard for me to stay present with problems like that, but we have a lot of problems like that and facing those giving space to experience the fear that surrounds things like climate change, the anxiety surrounding things like public education or college education, especially as the mother of three children, like I got to stop brushing past that in a, in a way Trump was an excuse to do it right, because there was all, there was always sort of more acute issue with him. Him being the acute issue.

And so taking his absence, um, at least from the bully pulpit as an opportunity to say, okay, we cannot constantly be consumed with the urgent and [00:15:00] miss the important. 

Beth: [00:15:01] So with those principles in mind, we have selected four big stories that we think are deserving of some time and discussion. But before we get into those four stories, we want to share a moment of hope with you as we always do and Rachel sent this moment in to share 

Rachel: [00:15:20] HI, Sarah and Beth. I hope y'all are enjoying some much deserve rest at the end of this crazy year. I wanted to send a commemoration your way, even though the Nuanced Life has come to a close. I'm a nurse and I received my first dose of the Pfizer BioEnTech COVID vaccine on Monday.

It was a brief encounter with the nurse who gave me the injection and then I was monitored to make sure that I didn't have an allergic reaction. I walked out to my car and a flood of emotions just hit me all at once in the quiet. I cried tears of gratitude [00:16:00] for the scientists who developed the vaccine and for the thousands of volunteers in the trials who took a risk and a leap of faith on behalf of others. I felt gratitude for each person who built and tested the freezers and organized their delivery specifically for this vaccine, the logistical teams that organize the many details and checks along the way, the drivers who carried this precious cargo and the administrators who dealt with more red tape and paperwork than I will know, to organize this whole endeavor with the state. 

I felt hope that there is light at the end of this tunnel. As divided as we are so many people came together to make this miracle happen. Nurses have gotten a lot of recognition for their heroism as frontline healthcare workers, but there is a whole village of unsung heroes that made this vaccine happen for us [00:17:00] and I would like to commemorate them. Thank you to each person who directly or indirectly connected the dots between the need for this vaccine and the bandaid on my arm. You give me hope that there is light at the end of this long and dark tunnel. 

Sarah: [00:17:21] For those of you who don't regularly listen to our other podcast, The Nuanced Life, we wrapped it up at the end of 2020 and Rachel is commemorating something, and that's what we used to do on the Nuanced Life. We shared space for commemorations, and we're gonna continue to do that.

And we're going to create some space in Pantsuit Politics to commemorate and this was the perfect opportunity. 

Beth: [00:17:42] Next up, we're going to apply our political resolutions to the top stories happening in the United States and around the world.

Sarah: [00:17:56] WE have a new Congress, but before we got this new Congress, [00:18:00] the old Congress got real active in their last couple of days. It's like, they were like, Oh, the election's over. We have, we have jobs. We have like a job that's not only getting reelected, maybe we should do said job. 

Beth: [00:18:14] We have a job and some very hard deadlines staring us down. So what happened as too often happens in our congressional leadership now is the recognition that some very important programs are going to expire. The federal government is going to run out of money. And so we're going to roll a bunch of things together and try to get them done. So we did get a COVID relief bill, as I'm sure that, you know, just to quickly go through what's in that bill, because many of you have asked us. It's a $900 billion package.

About a third of it is going to programs that get money and help to individuals and families, stimulus checks, unemployment, rent, assistance, snap benefits. Um, we also saw an increase to the pandemic emergency unemployment [00:19:00] compensation fund. So 11 weeks of $300 a week benefits for people currently receiving that compensation.

This is the fund that helps people, whether they qualify for regular unemployment insurance or not so it's reaching our gig workers. It also expands the program for people who cannot work because of the pandemic, whether it's because of illness or family illness or quarantining or because schools are closed.

So a good check-in with reality from Congress in terms of this program. The relief package also extends eviction protection to January 31st. I have a feeling we're going to need to see more work done on that by our new Congress in pretty short order, and also helpful to some families. You can roll over unused money in a flexible spending account instead of losing it.

About another third of it is going to go to small business aid and most of which will fund the paycheck protection program and the remaining third is pretty miscellaneous. Some money for schools, some money for vaccine distribution, [00:20:00] shoring up the national strategic stockpile of PPE. There's money for a variety of public health agencies, including money for substance abuse and mental health treatment and to support early childhood programs.

So that relief package merged with government spending through 2021, September 2021. And that $1.4 trillion package to fund the government is where you see a lot of the items that people talked about casually as unrelated to COVID relief. Well, of course they are because we have a whole government to take care of in addition to doing COVID relief.

So some highlights from the spending package, there's a $5 billion increase in base defense funding and a $20 billion increase in non-defense funding and those increases are over the last fiscal year. We have $3.1 billion in this package for crises, um, agency operations impacted by COVID-19 [00:21:00] particularly.

And then we have 2.35 billion for wildfire suppression activities. There's new money for medical research associated with the 21st century cures act and a $1.9 billion program to ensure the integrity of other government initiatives. So I think this is a pretty good package as, as things go together. But Congress finally got some money out the door with the clock, urgently ticking on them. 

Sarah: [00:21:28] We also got the passage of the national defense authorization act, which Trump then vetoed, but then both the house and the Senate, by pretty overwhelming majorities, overrode his veto. So for those of you who don't remember, the NDA is a $741 billion bill that authorizes national defense programming.

And Trump was angry that it didn't bring in the repeal of a law governing social media companies that eliminates their liabilities for information posted on their [00:22:00] platform. He wanted them to be liable for things that they said on their platform, which would be uh, quite chilling, I would imagine on social media platforms, but he wanted them to do to wrap in the removal of that liability to military spending. 

Congress pretty resoundingly said, no, we're not going to do that. Um, but what it does do now that it's been now that it's officially law is puts lots of money, um, into trying to out posture, China money for submarines and other infrastructure and the Pacifics as has an cybersecurity overhaul.

So it's not just regular funding. It seems to be acknowledging that we have some defense priorities that desperately need attention, particularly when it comes to China and cybersecurity. So 

Beth: [00:22:42] that's what our old Congress did. We have a new Congress now, the new members have been seated. The speaker has been elected. We have a record number of women serving in the house of representatives, which is good news 

Sarah: [00:22:51] I just wanna say, really quickly before we move on from the, the election of Nancy Pelosi. I thought it was interesting. And I wanted to hear your take on this, [00:23:00] that I think a lot of press and attention from Twitter verse goes to the conflict, um, between the squad AOC, uh, Rashida Talieb, Corey Bush now member of the squad, according to a Twitter post, um, and Ilhan Omar, and of course, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and their, uh, conflicts with speaker Pelosi.

 But what I thought was interesting is that all of them voted for her and it was the sort of moderate camp um, Abigail Spanberger, Elise Slotnick who voted present for the election of speaker Pelosi. What were your thoughts on that? 

Beth: [00:23:42] Well, those moderates have just gotten through some very tough races where they constantly tied to Nancy Pelosi. And I can imagine that there is some cover in voting present for them. I think that's too bad, but I get it. And I can imagine that being done [00:24:00] sort of with speaker Pelosi's blessings overall, I think the entire democratic caucus probably just had to realize that stability is needed right now.

And. I would frankly love to see a new speaker of the house. But I get why that shakeup in this particular moment would be very ill-advised and I just think that's how she ended up getting everybody on board. Even though you have really disparate opinions, she still did a good job giving those young progressive members of Congress nice pit committee assignments too. I think she has tried to manage a diverse group of ideas within the caucus. That was my take. What did you think? 

Sarah: [00:24:41] Well, and I think it's not just stability, but it's that you have this teeny tiny majority, the smallest majority that we've had in several decades, especially once a president like Biden plucked a few more members for cabinet positions.

Um, Which I think was the right call. And I'm glad that they decided to do that [00:25:00] because I think that the cabinet positions, especially the really important ones, like the department of the interior have more impact over the long haul than the two years of this Congress. But yeah, I think it will was an acknowledgement that, you know, the conflict that I think plays out so often between the squad and Nancy Pelosi is, is created in the media more than it is a reality inside the house of representatives. 

Um, I also think, you know, there's been a lot of analysis that could this be one of the most active congresses because of the small majority. We don't know what's going to happen in Georgia today, as this episode comes out with the special election. But, you know, I think these close, these close margins could lead to a lot of compromise, could lead to a lot of, um, Moderate legislation getting through, especially with Joe Biden as president. I'm [00:26:00] I'm, you know, it's, it's not the narrative I've had in my head for a long time.

And this gets to our political resolutions, like where do I really need to question the narrative? I had that, which is you get a lot done by having a lot, a big democratic majority. Um, but I think what you see with the assertion, even with the COVID relief bill of these moderates, um, bi-partisan moderates coming together and say, no, this is what we're going to do.

And we're going to really press, press the hand of leadership and make this happen. Um, maybe these, this moderate power play be it, you know, Abigail Spenberger voting present, or the COVID relief, but like, I don't know. Maybe I do need to question some of my assumptions about what actually get things gets things done in our current political environment.

Beth: [00:26:46] And it gets things done very unhappily, right? The COVID relief bill is the absolute least Congress could have done. The absolute least at the absolute last minute, but it did get something done. They broke a [00:27:00] log jam and in some ways, inching along like that with some people thinking it was too much money and some people thinking it's not enough and I hate that provision and you hate this one is part of the legislative process. And so if you could get the log jam broken and things, at least moving a little bit, I think that would be much better than all these symbolic victories that have characterized the McConnell era. 

Sarah: [00:27:24] For sure. Yeah. Yeah. 

Beth: [00:27:26] And that really relates to the certification of the election results, which is coming up on Wednesday.

So before we get too much into the analysis, let's just say, this is going to happen at one o'clock in the house chamber on Wednesday and a joint session of Congress, the vice president will preside over the session. He will. The role of Congress is actually to open envelopes and say like, is this Connecticut's real certification?

Awesome. Moving on. That's what this process is supposed to be. Constitutionally, it is not investigative in any way, but there [00:28:00] will be objections as we all know. What I think is interesting about this. I have a lot of words about this, but to re to pick up where we just left off. You know, Senator McConnell has been such a protector of Senate Republicans by preventing them from taking votes.

And now finally, you have a group of Republican saying, no, we're going to take this vote. I can't believe they put their chips in on taking this vote. This is the one they're going to challenge him on. I hope that the good, that can come from this just spectacular mistake is that they'll take more votes in general.

And that may be Mitch McConnell won't be as protective of some of his members anymore. And some of these bills that are hard that get through the house on a, on a bipartisan basis, he'll make people take the vote in the [00:29:00] Senate. I would like to see the Senate taking more votes. 

Sarah: [00:29:03] My instinct and I don't know if my instinct is supporting my new political resolutions or not is that as much as I want this to be some sort of rendering inside the Republican party, I don't think that's the reality. I think Mitch McConnell protects Senate Republicans because Senate Republicans create Mitch McConnell's power.

Beth: [00:29:29] Majority. 

Sarah: [00:29:30] And so whatever he can do to continue to protect them, it's not really about them. It's about him. And so he'll continue to do it. This does disrupt a little bit of the narrative I've carried for so long, which is they, they, you know, the sort of the Republican leadership, Republican politicians in Congress, do whatever it takes, um, to maintain that power. And I expect to continue to see that, but this has hurt them.

This has and will continue to hurt them and us. Uh, disruption of the certification process, not [00:30:00] only is, um, an attack on federalism, which is what I think you see articulated by Liz Cheney and Paul Ryan, and Tom cotton and Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney. This idea that like, no, that's not what we do. We empower States and the States are empowered to elect the president and it is not Congress's job to interfere in the process.

And so when you see the sort of, um, This is an attack on our democracy. Um, I think that's what, that's, what, that's what people mean, right? Is that we, we have a process set up inside the constitution that vests this power inside the States, and the idea that Congress will come and save the day, disrupt the process, question the fraud, whatever it is like, that's just not how we are set up.

 And so I think that that is why it's damaging to us. Why is it damaging to the Republican party, as you are seeing the sort of a break in the line, which listen, that's usually Democrats things. That's what we do. Right. We fight. Um, and so it is interesting and disrupting to my narrative [00:31:00] to a certain extent to see this, this play out so publicly.

Um, and I do think it will have consequence, um, And I think some of that we might not ever see or know publicly. Um, I think you will see it behind the scenes, um, sort of the, the who's gonna run? Who are we going to spend money on? And I'm not, I'm not sure how much we'll ever know about the real repercussions for this.

And I'm not sure, like, is Ben Sasse really as angry as he sounds on Facebook or was that performative like, is he like, if, if questioning Mitch McConnell was really like, if this was a true rift, if this was a true cancer spreading throughout the Republican party, you would see consequences for them not doing what he's begged them not to do, which is to question the certification process as far as committee placements [00:32:00] or something along those lines. Right. And contributions. So I'm not, I'm not sure we're going to see that. 

And to me, like it will, if there's no consequence, as far as political consequences inside the party, then what does it really mean? And I, you know, and I think that this, the answer is we don't know yet. We don't know yet. And we won't know after Wednesday either. Um, we're going to have to see a little bit more of this play out. And I think the consequences, this is like what I'm talking about. Like, I'm ready to close the book on Trump, but we can not close the book on Trump, inside the Republican party for many, many, many, many more months if not years.

 Like he's gonna continue to do what he can um, and hold on to that power. And people are going to push back and I just don't think we know what that means yet. I really don't think we know. I don't think it's as open and closed as if the party of Trump were done, that's it. Like, it just cannot maintain, that cannot be [00:33:00] the conclusion, um, as his term comes to an end, a future one a second term then yeah, but he didn't. 

Um, I know he does not believe that. And I know we're going to get to this recording with him and. The Georgia secretary of state in a minute, uh, which made it abundantly clear to me that he actually thinks he won, which he did not. Um, but I told him my husband, I said, I know that Donald Trump lies.

But so often he believes his lies and so it is perceived as authenticity. And the idea that this gallery of Ivy league imitators like Tom Cotton and Josh Holly and Ted Cruz can step up and maintain that authenticity with his base, certification questioning or not, I think is just ludicrous. I don't think it's going to read the same way.

I know they're all tiptoeing not to make those people mad, but you can maybe prevent from pissing them off, but you can not lead them in the way that he has led [00:34:00] them because you are not him. But I don't know. I don't know what that means yet. You know, like, I don't know how that's gonna play out. 

Beth: [00:34:07] Don't know what Donald Trump believes. There are times when I agree with you. I think he really believes he won the election, but I'm becoming more cynical about it and thinking that maybe he just thinks it doesn't matter. Maybe his animating belief is that there is only public perception and he can always create the public perception. 

Even the Republicans who are opposing these objections to certification are issuing statements, not all of them, but many of them saying things like we share the concerns of millions of Americans about this electoral process. The concerns have been created. The concerns have been manufactured. Were there errors? Always do you think that we've ever had an election where zero people voted in a way that shouldn't have counted or should have, and didn't know we've never had a [00:35:00] perfect election.

We don't have a perfect census. We don't have a perfect process of anything that involves as many people as live here. That's okay. What do you think? This is the question that I have for just among ourselves, as citizens for people who are convinced that something went so wrong this time, I want to know what you think went so wrong that was different than previous elections. 

That is what I fail to see any evidence of. Should we always be striving for a cleaner process? Yes and we are and you can see ways in which this election was an improvement over 2016. And that's what we want to keep working on. If I were a Pennsylvania state legislator, believe I would come back to work saying, you know what? We need a uniform system across the state about carrying ballots. Let's write that into law and do it. 

We learned something. This is the remedy for it. Let's move forward, but that's so different from disenfranchising everyone. My main point is people have these [00:36:00] concerns because they've been told to have these concerns and then their legislators continue to fuel them by acknowledging them as legitimate and as legitimate reasons to oppose actually getting to the finish line on this election.

And so I kind of listened to that call between Trump and the Georgia secretary of state, and just heard someone for whom the reality doesn't matter at all, it's just how much can I exert pressure to create the reality that I want in the public eye? And as long as the public is with me, enough of the public, then enough of the legislators will be 

Sarah: [00:36:35] Yes, but he didn't know the public was going to hear that call. That's what leads me to believe. He actually thinks these things. He thought he was just talking to Brad Raffensperger and to me, what makes Brad Raffensperger is such a fascinating character and speaks to what you were just saying is he knows he did the process correctly. He knows he paid attention to the [00:37:00] concerns from last time and improved them and made them better.

Like, you can feel the righteousness of his effort to improve the process every time he talks. Right? Like I think that you, you can feel his sort of the wind at his back as far as like, Oh no, I have a paper ballot for everything. I know that we did it correctly. I know my data is correct. Like, you can just feel that with him.

I think it was so brilliant that he recorded this call because they thrown him under the bus so many times. And he was like, Oh no, not again, friend, I'm going to have the receipts. But like, to me, the fact that he didn't know that I can't imagine why Donald Trump does not assume he's being recorded. How many times he's gotten bitten by recording, but like that goes to it, right? Like that, you know, I think that he, he just lives in that reality and so he couldn't even think like, well, what if they're recording? Because he's gonna go, he's gonna go on a rally stage and say the same thing. You know, 

[00:38:00] Beth: [00:37:59] that's where I think there's authenticity. I don't know that there's a public and a private Donald Trump. 

Sarah: [00:38:04] Yeah. I don't think there is. 

Beth: [00:38:05] That he has a genuine connection with anyone where he would like put his guard down and say, you know, really, this is kind of all crap, but I'm doing my best. I mean, maybe he would, I don't know. And sometimes when I get wrapped up in this question, I think, what am I looking for?

Some kind of moral window into this person? What difference does it make? What I think is so interesting again, for us as citizens is that immediately that tape has been out 24 hours as we sit down to record and immediately the camps became worst thing ever, impeach him again, versus it was so disgusting of Brad Raffensperger to record that call and my question on the impeach him again, crowd is, do you really think that's what the United States needs in this particular moment? 

And my question, even though I agree that it breached an ethical [00:39:00] line for sure and my question for the, it was so disgusting to record that crowd is what could this president do that would in your mind, merit, any form of accountability?

I just want to hear that. And I want to ask that earnestly, because at some point, what are we talking about? I don't know what we're talking about anymore, other than you're with him or against him. 

Sarah: [00:39:23] Yeah. Well, and that's what's happening within the Republican party. You're either with him or against him and 

Except 

Beth: [00:39:30] they want to thread the needle. So many of them want to say I'm with him, but I don't have this power and fine. I'll take it. Listen, I loved Jonah Goldberg has a fantastic piece about hypocrisy and how it's not the thing that we make it out to be because wouldn't, we rather people be right some of the time than not ever. And I am a hundred percent there.

I'm not going to lambaste people over this. I would rather you be right this time than never. Yeah. But it is interesting to me that they continue to want to find that space. 

Sarah: [00:39:58] Well, this is, that's a good [00:40:00] transition to the other story that we want to talk about in that the election continues to be the only thing that he is focused on when he is still president and we're trying to distribute vaccines and one of the largest undertakings in our country's history.

And he seems to have no interest in doing this well, completely at all. So the goal was to have. 20 million Americans receiving the first dose of either the Pfizer or Maderna vaccine by the end of 2020. Well, we're now fully into 2021 and only 4 million people in the U S have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose according to the CDC.

 There seems to be several issues at the center of this. Okay. The first is a lag in reporting. It just takes awhile to get the numbers, you know, from every distribution site across the United States, into the CDC system so that we know how many doses are, have gone out. Understandable.

The [00:41:00] biggest issue as far as I can tell, um, is that we try to do this over Christmas and between the holiday break and closures and shorter hours and winter weather. Um, there were just a lot of logistical roadblocks to getting the vaccine and that much of the vaccine out into the American populace. I mean, of course the, the, the center of all of these issues is that there continues to be no federal guidance.

 I mean, he, even the president even tweeted one point like we got until you, then it's up to you guys. Well, now we're hoisting this massive distribution on hospitals and help local health care officials, health departments that are already, already completely overworked, completely at their limit with in the middle of a surge.

 So they're already really, really stretched then if not already broken, [00:42:00] because of increased hospitalizations because of increased deaths across the country. And then we're saying, Oh, can you take this on as well? And they don't have this resources or the capacity to then do this really, really difficult vaccine distribution.

 And I think that, you know, I avoided so many of these stories and I think I felt this from many of my friends. Just this idea of like, I cannot, I cannot, I am, I am putting so much hope on the vaccine and the vaccine distribution to read stories. And I think some of them were, um, a little bit alarmist.

About it's not happening or their ex God forbid, they're actually expiring was really, really difficult. And it's still difficult to think about, but I, [00:43:00] I do not think that this is the permanent state of affairs. That is the hope I can give. If we're practicing the discipline of hope. Um, then that is the hope that, that I can get.

I think that this, this will not be the, the perpetual state of vaccine distribution in the United States, um, as with everything with the current administration in charge of a federal response. Um, be it testing, tracing, and now vaccine distribution. Um, it's not going well, but that will, that will not continue past January 20th.

I think that once the Biden administration, um, is in charge and we have a federal government that believes in the federal government and the ability of the federal government to solve problems and do things well. Hopefully this will change. 

Beth: [00:43:48] I think this is going to be a blip in the historic record. I really do.

I almost want to affirm your instinct to avoid these stories, because this is a historic undertaking, [00:44:00] as you said, in the most difficult, I mean, the people who are having to learn to give these vaccines under such difficult logistical circumstances, think of it. Administering a two dose vaccine from different brands that have to be kept at various levels of helicoptered to the entire population prioritized under various rubrics of public health philosophy and ethics would be difficult if people weren't sick.

 Yeah, this would be hard in a world where hospitals were not overburdened with this rate of transition. This would be hard if we had the most competent president in us history who was directing all of his attention at it. This is hard and there's gotta be some learning.

And I just think we're in the learning curve of it. You know, I know that when that story came out about how we might be able to get more doses out of the amounts. A vaccine that we have, it was alarming and concerning for people. That's just [00:45:00] learning though. That's how it happens. We saw it with the mask guidance.

We've seen it all the way through this process and we have to find a way, I think, to maintain not only that hope, but some amount of, of at least good faith, if not trust in a process that allows. For trial and error and experimentation and some outright failures and some incompetence because we're humans trying to make this happen. And I still feel every time I see a picture of anybody receiving a vaccine, I think we have come so far. We have so far to go, but we've come so far so fast. Just be patient, just hang in here. 

Sarah: [00:45:41] Well, you know what I keep thinking about that phrase, people throw around when you've had a baby about weight gain nine months on, nine months off.

Now don't email me. I'm not, I'm not supporting or condoning that praise. And just, it just feels like with COVID like it took a while to get here. It's going to take a while to get out. It's not going to [00:46:00] be instantaneous under any stretch of the imagination. Like we didn't, you know, if we've learned anything from that, the second surge is like, this is, this is a, a perpetual wave, right.

That we're just like we get through one wave and another is coming in it. And I think the recovery is going to be the same way. We're going to have dips and, and arches. And this, this. Vaccine distribution and just coming out of it all at all. Like it's not going to be one and done. The vaccine itself is in one done.

You got to get to diagnosis. And I think that we just have to give ourselves grace and find some space not to be rocked by every well, maybe you only need a half a dose. Well, maybe you can do a one dose from one vaccine and another from another, or maybe you could like. Maybe. Yeah, there's lots of maybes and there's going to continue to be lots of maybes when it comes to COVID-19 

Beth: [00:46:53] And there are always maybes in medical treatment. Always. I bought an $86 [00:47:00] bottle of eardrops, not having any understanding of what was in that bottle whatsoever because my doctors told me it might help a problem I was having, because that's a lot of what a lot of things are. You know, and, and I trust them with the thing that I am shooting into this area that's real close to my brain. 

And so I am going to go along with this process to the best of my ability. Okay. Two more quick things that we need to cover today, as you probably heard, Russian hackers have intruded into more than 250 federal agencies and corporations. Now, electrical grids labs. It is a lot.

I do want to bring your attention to a really good piece that I'll link in the show notes about how hacking is also a spectrum. It is not, you were hacked or not. 

There are lots of questions along the way. Could you see information? Could you control information? Could you change information? And we don't know a lot about this, [00:48:00] and this is something that it's going to take us a while to unravel to.

We know that Russia got in through network management software, made by a company called solar winds. And what I think is important to examine about this. Is that the story of solar winds is in many ways, the story of American business right now, because you have this management firm with hundreds of thousands of customers and pretty poor security practices and enormous profit margins and an unwillingness to invest those profit margins in fixing problems that its employees were telling them about.

Some people on their way out the door, telling solar winds, we are vulnerable here. And so through Solar Winds, again, a company with poor security practices, wired reported, for example, that one of their update servers use the password, Solar Winds123. Okay. So we're not doing our best here, but hackers were able to [00:49:00] view some of the code. 

We know at least underlying Microsoft software, but not change it. So that's one piece of this puzzle. We don't know what happened at treasury state commerce energy, parts of the Pentagon. We know that they got in to some degree, but we don't know how far we also know that our government agencies responsible for cyber defense did not detect this breach.

A private cybersecurity company called FireEye detected it. If FireEye had not come forward, we might not know today that this had been happening. We know that this has been going on for at least nine months and FireEye discovered it because an employee got an alert that someone logged in to the company's virtual network using that person's credentials from a new device, the kind of alert, but I don't know about y'all, but depending on the day I might ignore.

So again, there's this complicated relationship. This is COVID too between systems and individuals. [00:50:00] And I've been thinking about this story, Sarah and how I almost think my next question is, how can we have a new conversation about technology in our country? And I think a framework that may be useful. Is if we talked about technology, the way we talk about magic in children's literature, go with me for a second.

Anytime you read a book or watch a movie about magic, there is this sense that the person who is magical has this incredible power that they will never fully understand so they must learn to control it. That's a really different orientation than you are a user of technology. And I really think that if we all started recognizing that we have in our hands, on our keyboards, in our workplaces, this incredible power that we don't understand how it works at all, but we must learn to control it.

That would be very helpful to cybersecurity. Because even really good [00:51:00] systems, you must have those individuals. We know that this hacking was the work of humans, not a computer program. And those humans made decisions like let's use servers inside the United States because FBI, CIA law enforcement cannot spy on servers inside the United States, the way they can on servers throughout the world.

So, this dance between human and technology individual and group systems versus decision-making, I just think we might need a new metaphor to help us all wrap our brains around that. 

Sarah: [00:51:38] Well, I wish I could say that. I felt the way about this story, the way you felt about the vaccine distribution story, which is that it's a historical lip. I do not feel that way. 

Beth: [00:51:47] No, I agree. 

Sarah: [00:51:48] I love your magic analogy. I'm thinking a lot about the revolutionary war and how we talk about that as the moment, [00:52:00] um, or shifted the Americans took a new tactic, right? Like we didn't just line up in straight lines and shoot each other and see what happened. Like we had to take, we were smaller.

Um, and so we had to take a different tactic. We had to break the rules, um, of warfare. And how that, that didn't just that, wasn't it. Like we didn't do that the first time and when the revolutionary war, right. We didn't ambush them from the woods and then Britain was like, well, it's done. Um, we still lost a lot of battles.

It still took a lot of, um, Good leadership and historical opportunities and luck, um, to win the revolutionary war and to continue to succeed in this, this new environment inside warfare. And I think that's, I always wonder, like, did they know, like, what was it like to live through that? Like, [00:53:00] did they see immediately like, Oh, the rules of the game have changed and so we need to change accordingly or did they continue to, I mean, I think we know they continue to double down on the old approach.

Let's just bring over more and more soldiers to line up. That's what it feels like to me, it feels like we're, we're living through a really historical shift and the way that cyber security or cyber warfare, whatever language you want to use is being used and Russia is smaller than us and has fewer resources than we do.

And so they have to take different tactics. And I do like the spectrum idea because I think you hear, they hacked it and you think they have control of everything. And I do think it's a really important, like to give the space to like, no, that's not what that means. So let's just take a breath and realize we don't actually know.

But the, the macro view to me is like, this is, this has changed. Things are changing and we can not continue to double down on the [00:54:00] belief that things will remain the same. And I hope and believe that there are people inside the government that realize that, and we should demand that, right. That, that, that this, that cyber warfare has changed and cybersecurity, particularly our cybersecurity needs to stop sort of wishing and praying that things will continue on or that they'll go back to the way they used to and adapt accordingly.

 And I think like that, that takes that interplay between the individual and the system and leadership, real leadership on this.

Beth: [00:54:36] I think that's part of why I want a new metaphor, because another thing that occurs to me as I read this story is I, this is a place where we need more horizontal thinking, not just vertical thinking.

It sounds like, and look, I don't know, I'm not in the defense department. It sounds like cyber security is, is still being treated as a vertical. [00:55:00] And I would love to see someone like Pete Buddha judge in his role as secretary of transportation, assuming he's confirmed talking about. Cybersecurity as just part of protecting our infrastructure.

Yeah. And here's how we do it across all these spaces, because we don't know why Russia did this hack. And then maybe the answer is because Russia just does things to show that it can, I mean, that does seem to be a part of Russia's animating philosophy. So that might be good enough, but there are, there could be business objectives.

There could be governmental objectives. I mean, If it's all treated as like cyber defense from a US national security perspective, what are we missing? And what are we missing in all the people who are non-military and not part of FireEye and Microsoft who have to be part of this effort, because we create all these vulnerabilities out here, the way we're harnessing all this power without any control.

 And we [00:56:00] each create all these vulnerabilities on a massive scale. If nothing comes of this, other than an enormous amount of cost is an enormous amount of cost that's going to be created here. 

Sarah: [00:56:12] Well, an enormous amount of cost seems like a good transition to our last big story, which we're going to jump across the pond. We're going to go to Britain because four years after this journey began, Brexit is complete. They signed a trade deal Britain and the European union at the end of the year. Uh, again, coming right down to the wire, this seems to be a theme to follow. Preventing a no Brexit, hard Brexit. Um, they reached a deal.

I think part of the reason it wasn't just the deadline, but we saw a really, really nasty taste of what a no deal exit would look like. Um, right before they signed this deal. France closed its borders with the UK [00:57:00] to prevent the spread of that new contagious coronavirus variant. And you had trucks upon trucks upon trucks just stuck lined up along the road side of the border, especially around Dover. 

And I think that that visual, like got everybody's attention, what, whoever was holding back, all these people that rejected poor Theresa May's trade deal after trade deal after trade deal got on board. Uh, pretty quickly considering how long they've been batting around these trade deals for literal years um, and without a lot of detail.

 So let's walk through a little bit of what this trade deal contains. So it's a tariff free deal. Um, so there'll continue to be zero tariffs. That's a big relief to lots of businesses inside the United Kingdom and the European union. So they'll continue that. There are border checks that are about to become a reality and border checks mean delays.

And I think one of the big problems is that so many of these small businesses inside the United Kingdom, [00:58:00] um, Aren't prepared, haven't thought through what this reality means because they've been dealing with COVID um, and so the government seems to be preparing people like we are, this is going to be an issue and we're just going to have to continue to deal with it.

Now, one of the big concessions that the UK made inside this trade deal is with regards to fishing. Two thirds of the fish in the UK waters and five and a half years compared with just one half currently um, well, Be able to belong to the UK. So that's who we'll be able to catch those fish. It's really interesting.

Like this fishing debate has been huge and important, even though it's kind of a tiny piece of their economy. Um, it seems like they finally were like, okay, we're done being held hostage by the fishing industry a little bit. Um, there's a, it's a lot less clear with regards to the service industry and the service industry in the UK, that's your retail, particularly the financial sector, the public sector, um, business administration, leisure cultural activities. That's a huge component of their economy. It's 80% of the total UK [00:59:00] economic output. And there's not a lot of details inside this trade deal about what this means for the services economy.

That's Theresa May made a point of like saying, Hey, you guys, this is, this is less than I was giving you. Um, and y'all are past that. No big deal. I think it really was just to prevent the hard, um, exit or no, no exit, I guess, as the case will be. So they've got a deal. I think what this really means, you know, it's easy to say, well, Brexit is done, but one of the best analysis I read about what, what this Brexit trade deal means and what the Brexit finally coming to pass means.

It's just there. There's just going to continue to be negotiation like. Um, if sovereignty is more important to you than anything else then, um, I would assume that, that you feel better that that Britain has more established sovereignty, but you know, people making trips to the [01:00:00] EU, to the European Union lasting longer than nine days, like there, they are going to have to secure a visa. 

Um, Brits heading to the continent for any length of time, they're going to have to get their passport stamp stamped, like there's real economic impact beyond just the services industry beyond just travel. I mean, with all these border checks and that's just going to continue to be negotiated and negotiated and negotiated.

So you might have greater sovereignty, but the economic impact, this, this relationship with the European union is less defined and therefore just going to have to be constantly evolving. And I, you know, I think that that will come at a cost for the United Kingdom. And I, again, I think that's back to our political resolutions.

Like we're just going to have to give space to that. I [01:01:00] think Brexit is another story that's been exhausting us for years upon years, and we're ready to just like close the book on it and move on. But really what Brexit means is that this relationship between Britain and the European union is evolving and it's going to continue to evolve and it's going to continue to require negotiation.

And they're going to be nasty consequences that nobody anticipated and perhaps positive consequences that are going to continue to play out. But that's the story as much as we want it to be over is really just beginning. 

Beth: [01:01:29] And it's an important model, again, for us as citizens, because when you're having conversations with people who feel strongly about anti-globalization or about having products made in the United States or any number of things that are all legitimate things to feel, the next question has to be, what are we willing to pay for that? 

It's fine. But that's the question always. What are we willing to pay for it? Maybe you are willing to pay more money to have your products made in the United States. I [01:02:00] think that's awesome. I'm willing to, I'm happy to have that conversation. Um, if you hate Walmart.

Great. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about how many people are employed by Walmart and what those people are going to do if we can't have a business model like that in the United States anymore, let's talk about how many people in the United States have jobs because of really cheap goods and what are we willing to pay for those goods and what are we willing to pay to re-situate our fellow citizens in work that provides them with a living wage and meaningful things to do in an economy that's more insulated. That conversation is not going anywhere in America and it's not being had realistically right now. 

And again, I'm not trying to dissuade people of those viewpoints. I think there are some things that we should pay more for. I think our food is at the top of that list. But let's discuss it and let's, let's get to what's underneath the sentiment. And that to me is the lesson of Brexit, because if you go back to, is this just as a decision about sovereignty? Sure. At the [01:03:00] top line, but the stuff that has really mattered has very little to do with sovereignty. And much more to do with what you're willing to pay for 

Sarah: [01:03:08] Well and I think to sum up our overall conversations about our political resolutions and how we're thinking about these things, I just think it's a push to go deeper than a status update is not a political identity. Um, even a party identification is not a political identity because a political identity contains values, and those always go deeper and are more complicated and the consequences are longer lasting or just sometimes impossible to delineate. And that's hard. 

And that's not something that can be fought in the latest trending topic on Twitter, right? Like it's always even with something as, um, polarizing and chaotic and seemingly, uh, simple to summarize as Donald Trump, some of his actions and his administration, like [01:04:00] it's always going to go deeper and going to have far reaching consequences.

And it's just not something we can ever close the book on and move on. And I think that's hard coming off 2020, cause I have a very desperate urge to like close the book and move on. And I think that's what we want to do when we post a status update. Right. Or we, we make a pronunciation about, you know, sovereignty or the latest cultural controversy or, you know, whatever the case may be like, we want to be done with it.

Like I've made my point. I've said my piece. This is it. I'm on the record. Moving on. And I think what we're both trying to articulate with our political real is that like our political resolutions is that instinct is strong and it is not serving us.

Beth: [01:04:56] If [01:05:00] you are new to Pantsuit Politics, we always end our show, continuing that theme that we are more than a political identity, by discussing what's on our minds outside of politics. And since we are in a fresh new year, we thought we would share today our words of the year. 

Sarah: [01:05:17] Well, I've shared my word several times already before 2020 was even over cause I was so excited about it, but my word for 2021 is gentle. It came to me. I don't even remember where I heard it, but somebody was using that word and I thought, that's it. Like I knew it instantly, that doesn't always happen to me. Sometimes I kind of have to um, fuss and fret a bit to find my word, but it came to me.

I felt it in every core, like gentle. Yes. I want to be gentle with myself. I want to be gentle with those I love and those around me, I think we all need a great dose of gentleness, um, coming off of 2020. And so for me, that, you know, especially right now in the new year, I got, I got a mad instinct for new year hustle.

Like how many challenges can I [01:06:00] sign up for? How many goals can I set? And I'm just really trying to take a breath. Um, I'm reading Kristin Neff Self-Compassion and just trying to, um, think about like, what is the gentle choice here? Like is the gentle choice to, to rush through this book just because I want to finish the number of my reading challenge? Is the gentle choice, bingeing this TV show, just so I can say I've done it? Is the gentle choice pushing through what I know is an exhausting path just, just what, like, I don't even know what the just is for, just so I can just so I did just so I can say I did. 

And so, you know, gentle for me is, is taking a breath, thinking about like responding instead of reacting, thinking about what [01:07:00] will be energy giving and life-giving spiritually, physically, emotionally, psychologically in this moment, as opposed to just following that, that instinct I have to like, just, just, just should, should, should just, just, just. 

Beth: [01:07:18] I love that I should say this practice, uh, originated with Allie Edwards who is one of our executive producers and she has lots of resources supportive of this practice. 

Sarah: [01:07:28] And she's has coolest journal you can do for your word too. 

Beth: [01:07:31] My word of the year, this year is Present. It's a low bar that I've set for myself in certain ways and in other ways, the highest bar. I just want to be like less distracted and that's come up for me in so many ways, narrowing down my professional work to focusing in on Pantsuit Politics, narrowing in some of my activities and the way that I spend my time.

Really just coming closer and closer to these are the things that I [01:08:00] have in my life, I'm going to show up very fully for those things. When my kids are talking to me, not half listening, you know, when I'm responding to them, actually using words, instead of just mhms. I am mainlining Dr. Becky on Instagram, because she helps me so much think about what my role is in my presence with my kids.

Not just that I'm here and I'm really here and I'm engaged, but also thinking about, okay, now that I'm here and I'm engaged, what is the point of this connection? What is my role in this connection? And focusing in on my parenting is one of those things that, that the intention of presence is driving me toward. So present, I just want to, I want to really be where I am this year. 

Thank you for being present with us today during this episode, thank you for being here as part of the Pantsuit Politics community. Again, if you're new, we hope that you will find lots of places that you feel really comfortable meeting the wonderful people who've listened to this [01:09:00] podcast and think through the issues with us.

 We will be back in your ears Friday to discuss the results of the Georgia Senate races and how things unfolded in Congress on Wednesday and whatever else transpires between now and then. Have the best week available to you.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams, Allie Edwards, Martha Bernitski, Amy Whited, 

Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie Ladow, Emily Neislie,  

Alison Luzador. Tracy Puddoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Cores, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johanson. The Creeds! 

Beth: Sherry Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. 

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.



Alise NappComment