Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, how are your New Year’s resolutions going?
Gibbs Léger: I don’t do resolutions. I do intentions.
Seeberger: Yes, yes, OK, fine. How are your intentions going?
Gibbs Léger: Look, so far, so good. I’m actually quite pleased with myself.
Seeberger: Kudos. Myself, so far, I’m tracking 13 for 13 days in a row on my Peloton. So I am seeing if I can get to 100 days. I’m doing the 100-day challenge.
Gibbs Léger: You and me both, Colin. We’re gonna get our badge.
Seeberger: Let’s do it.
Gibbs Léger: I have faith in us.
Seeberger: Let’s do it. Well, I did hear that you had a great conversation this week with CAP Action’s Patrick Gaspard?
Gibbs Léger: I sure did. We talked about the political moment that we’re in, and President [Joe] Biden’s legacy, and Democrats’ path forward, what that should look like following the election.
Seeberger: Well, I know Patrick is going to have some really important insights as we, sigh, head into [Donald] Trump’s second inauguration next week. So I’m really looking forward to hearing what he had to say. But first, we have to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: We do. And as we gear up for Trump to take office—deep sigh—Senate confirmation hearings for his nominees are getting underway. Now, in years past, the president’s picks for his Cabinets have been experts in their field who will bring real knowledge to the table.
And there’s a good reason for that. The people who run these agencies have the power to protect the safety of our families, to put the interests of the middle class above big corporations, and to help us save a little more money at the end of every month. But these confirmation hearings will be a little bit different, Colin.
Seeberger: I think you could say that.
Gibbs Léger: This go-around, we’re going to hear from a bunch of MAGA loyalists and business insiders prepared to do the bidding of Donald Trump and billionaires like Elon Musk. They’re focused on amassing power and lining their own pockets. It reeks of corruption, and it’s clear these Cabinet picks are MAGA first, America last.
Let’s take Russ Vought, for example.
Seeberger: Oh, boy.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB. His confirmation hearing is on Wednesday. For those who don’t know, OMB sets the priorities and the budget for every federal government branch. So it’s really disturbing that to lead it, Trump has selected Russ Vought, one of Project 2025’s architects and a staunch MAGA extremist.
Vought believes that the president can simply choose to ignore certain spending laws if he feels like it. And when he ran OMB previously, he oversaw the administration illegally refusing to deliver aid to Ukraine. That violation alone should be disqualifying.
Seeberger: It sure should.
Gibbs Léger: And he’s promised to ignore spending laws again if he is confirmed for this position, which, again, is illegal. That means he might withhold funding for critical programs like Title I education grants and Inflation Reduction Act clean energy investments without the consent of the American people or the approval of the law.
Seeberger: Yeah, it’s really scary stuff. And we don’t really have to look very far to know what Russ Vought’s agenda is.
Like you mentioned, he was a key architect behind Project 2025, the radical MAGA playbook for a second Trump term. The Project 2025 plan he played a key role in writing, it would level the middle class in this country. The typical family of four would pay about $3,000 more a year under the plan. He wants to raise prescription drug costs for nearly 19 million Americans, ban abortion nationwide and eliminate access to no-cost child care for over 800,000 low-income families who are living in poverty.
He also wants to get rid of the Department of Education, which would jeopardize countless low-income families’ access to high quality schools and higher education, and it could mean nixing nearly 200,000 teaching positions in this country.
But Vought’s not the only concerning pick that’s headed before the Senate this week. Like you mentioned, many of the hearings are getting underway, and many of them are also featuring billionaire insiders and special interests like hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, Trump’s pick to lead the Treasury Department, who is going before the Senate on Thursday. Bessent came up with what he’s called this “3-3-3 plan,” which is just giving me a throwback to—
Gibbs Léger: 9-9-9.
Seeberger: 9-9-9. Yes. Good old Herman Cain. But Bessent’s 3-3-3 plan basically involves a set of goals to try and spur economic growth by drastically cutting spending and ramping up the production of dirty energy sources—which is ironic given the fact that we have L.A. on fire right now, with fire spreading even faster because of climate change, mind you.
And in keeping with MAGA Republican priorities, Bessent would extend tax cuts that benefit his billionaire buddies and make low- and middle-income families foot the bill for his plan. He’d put really critical programs that benefit the working class, like Medicaid or food assistance programs like SNAP and others, on the chopping block.
I’m hoping in their questioning this week that Democrats in the Senate really hammer home how MAGA Republicans are not just delivering for their billionaire donors and special interests, or trying to get rich because they see a friendly ally in the administration, but really hammer home that they’re doing that at the expense of actually investing in working people, and trying to pull the rug out from under them. It’s a key opportunity to put that contrast on full display.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I think that’s 100 percent correct. Now, I want to turn our hearts and minds to California for a moment because, as you mentioned, the wildfires there continue to rage on, and I want to address a couple of things.
First and foremost, I have so much empathy for everyone out there, and I do mean everyone who is dealing with this massive devastation, with loss or upheaval as a result of these fires. I’m sure we all know people who’ve been impacted. I have family who’ve had to evacuate young children who are terrified.
These are middle- and working-class families who’ve lost everything, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that. It’s not just very wealthy people who are impacted. But even rich folks, you know, they deserve our empathy too.
Seeberger: Even Spencer Pratt, right?
Gibbs Léger: Even Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag. When you lose your home, your belongings, your memories, the things that can’t be replaced, and your whole neighborhood—that is deserving of empathy, no matter what the size of your pocketbook is.
And I just want everyone to remember that people from all walks of life deserve that empathy. And many of them are struggling to figure out how to move on. But of course, we should always keep in mind those who don’t have the resources to rebuild.
And second, I think it’s important to acknowledge the role of climate change, like you mentioned, in making these the worst wildfires this area has experienced ever. Climate scientists say that drought caused by warming in California has made the vegetation in the state twice as susceptible to catching fire, which is why the winds were able to push these flames so far and so fast.
And this problem isn’t just isolated to Los Angeles, to be clear. It is part of an increasingly extreme, disastrous weather that we’re seeing as a result of climate change. The fires in L.A. are a sobering reminder that if we don’t act on climate, people’s lives and homes hang in the balance.
Seeberger: Yeah, and I wish I could at least find some hope and some solace in the real forceful, incredible climate action that this administration has taken, which really is intended on helping set us on a path to limit these types of extreme weather events.
But unfortunately, Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans, they’re getting their special interests there, oil and gas execs, who are intent on rolling back many of these protections that we put in place.
They want to pull back from the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy production investments, things that would seriously impede our progress both on climate action as well as take hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country away. It would do little to actually stop the growing onslaught of hurricanes, fires, and other natural disasters that we’re facing both across the United States as well as the globe, as more people are dealing with the repercussions of climate change.
The uptick in climate-related disaster impacts so many areas of our lives. For example, most people in small businesses, they can’t sustain the level of loss that we’re seeing from these weather events getting more and more extreme, right?
I mean, heck, I’ve even wondered—my father-in-law worked in reinsurance, where they’re basically the insurers for the insurers. And his company ultimately was wiped out by Hurricane Andrew back in the day.
Gibbs Léger: Wow.
Seeberger: But I’m like, there are going to be more Hurricane Andrews. There are going to be more fires like the kind that we’re seeing in California. And this is even as we are taking more action to fight climate change. And the ability for us to affect things through policy is getting more and more hard for us to achieve, but it also underscores just how much more important it is that we do take those actions.
But we’re not only going to need new policies to limit the warming that’s causing these disasters, we’re going to need new approaches to insurance. Because a lot of people are living in what’s called insurance deserts, where there are no insurance providers that are willing to even write a policy for somebody to live in areas of Florida or California or others where they’re especially at risk from suffering from some of these sorts of events.
I can’t even imagine going through all the devastation that these families in California have been through, losing your home, losing loved ones, and then having to navigate, how am I going to get back on my feet? How am I going to find a home where I can have home insurance?
There are just such foundational questions that we are forcing families to grapple with because we stalled in taking climate action for so long, and because some are trying to rip that climate action away. And I think that is just a horrific response. Imagine we come out of the pandemic, and imagine if the president was like, “We’re going to completely eliminate pandemic preparedness.” Right?
Gibbs Léger: Right.
Seeberger: It’s just a slap in the face. And I feel like that’s the moment that we’re in right now.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Can only hold out hope that the pendulum doesn’t swing all the way back in the other direction.
Seeberger: Totally.
Gibbs Léger: Our hearts really go out to anyone who’s been affected by this. And while it is not a long-term policy solution, there are a lot of GoFundMes that are out there and other funds that you can donate to if you want to support some of these folks, if you’re able.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, every little bit helps. If you have clothes that you need to clean out of your closet, there are donations that people are, I know, helping get supports over to some of the impacted communities in California. Fully endorse doing everything that we can to help all of our neighbors.
And with that, that is all the time we have for today. If there’s anything you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Blue Sky, Instagram, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Patrick Gaspard in just a beat.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: Patrick Gaspard is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and the CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Patrick was a key figure in President Barack Obama’s administration, serving as political director during the first term and as U.S. ambassador to South Africa in the second term.
From fall 2011 to spring 2013, he served as the executive director of the Democratic National Committee. Before joining CAP, Patrick was the president of the Open Society Foundations, one of the largest private philanthropies in the world.
Patrick, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Patrick Gaspard: Thank you so much for having me on. I absolutely love “The Tent.”
Gibbs Léger: All right, let’s jump right into it. So, many of us are still reeling from the last presidential election and coming to terms with the fact that Donald Trump seems to be as popular as he ever was.
So as we prepare for him to be sworn into office next week, I want to start by asking you, how did we get here? And how do we come to terms with the factors in American society that have emboldened Trump and the MAGA movement?
Gaspard: Well, do we have enough time here for a Ph.D.-level seminar on how we got here?
Gibbs Léger: CliffsNotes.
Gaspard: That’s a difficult thing to respond to. But it’s interesting, Daniella, in your question, you noted that he seems to be as popular as he’s ever been. I think that’s one of the important things to note about how we got here in the immediate term, right?
I think one of the data points that too many of my friends were not paying attention to during the course of the long election slog was Donald Trump’s retrospective approval number. There’s a way that it feels as if much of America fell into a wormhole during the pandemic. And the challenges with Donald Trump’s leadership in the first two, two and a half years of his presidency and all those challenges were evident. There were demonstrations every day. There were court challenges that we ended up with impeachment hearings. All those things were evident.
Somehow, the pandemic itself seemed to paper over those challenges, and half the electorate at least did not hold Donald Trump responsible either for the pandemic itself, or the reckless response to the pandemic that ended up costing more lives than it should have. So, there’s that really important point.
And then in addition to that, retrospectively, when we looked at his approval number, it was clear that the American people had some hagiography around his economic management and economic success coming off eight years of the hard choices that President Obama and Vice President Biden had to make, and then the choices that Joe Biden made as president of the United States for four years.
So, in a way, there was a way that his term was hermetically sealed in those first two years, when people remembered having more money in their bank accounts. We didn’t have runaway inflation in the country. They felt that their personal finances and their communities’ opportunities were on an upward trajectory.
We also had the reality, Daniella, that during the pandemic we did have upticks in crime across the board, whether you’re in rural America, suburban America, or in urban America. And much of that continued in the post-pandemic moment in ways that created a tremendous sense of insecurity in the country.
And that was always coupled with what became a real challenge in downward pressure on public services from a new exploding migrant population that we had in much of the country. So, you have a wormhole around his performance before the pandemic. You have the reality that the economy was in a better state pre-pandemic before inflation. And then this incredible anxiety that came from spikes in crime, explosion in migration that created a sense of some challenges in law and order, challenges in whether or not communities were stable enough, real economic dislocation in the country. And more important than the left-right divide, than the Democrat versus Republican divide, was a kind of outsider versus insider divide, where people, irrespective of their political party affinity, were feeling as if elites in both parties had taken over institutions and were making decisions in a way that disadvantaged outcomes for average folk.
So all of what I just named, Daniella, are proximate challenges that we’ve had in the last six years or so. There’s a much bigger response, much, much bigger set of answers that we have to consider also that maybe you and I will have a little bit of time to go through as we think about what’s happened in the industrial heartland of this country post NAFTA, post the China shock, and the reality that Democrats lost vote share precipitously along the lines of the places in the last decade that saw the most factories being shuttered, most loss of industrial jobs—not the most loss of jobs, but the most loss of all the industrial jobs—and counties that felt absolutely hollowed out.
That is a significant part of how we ended up here. There’s a whole other conversation about the Democratic Party itself that I have a sneaking suspicion we’ll get to sometime here in this “Tent.”
Gibbs Léger: So, I want to talk about what’s happening right now and the fact that Trump isn’t even in office yet and we’re already back to the same chaotic news cycle that we saw during his first presidency—claims of sovereign nations that should become part of the United States, long rants about windmills and so much more dominating the headlines.
Gaspard: Oh my God.
Gibbs Léger: Right? Exactly. Here we go again. How should Democrats stay focused and pick their battles, especially as we’re approaching and having Senate confirmation hearings around Trump’s nominees?
Gaspard: Yeah, I’m so glad to have this question, Daniella. I’m already seeing all the ways that too many of my dear good friends on Capitol Hill and in states are getting right back into being baited by the chum that Donald Trump is throwing into the water for us.
We cannot play Whac-a-mole for the next few years under Donald Trump. Whac-a-mole didn’t work last time. If it worked, he wouldn’t have been reelected, right? You can’t go after every single thing that this guy throws out there. You can’t go after every social media post, every single thing he puts in every executive order, every bit of rhetoric.
We have to pick fights that are not simply oppositional but are definitional about where we—the collective we—intend to take the American people. We have to set some clear terms on a set of issues that folks are most concerned about.
You asked me before how we got here. Part of why we got here is because people felt that the Democratic Party was insufficiently attentive to cost-of-living challenges, to the immigration question. They felt that the legislation that was being passed out of Capitol Hill, the fights that we were having, the arguments that we’re lifting up on social media and cable television, were about things that were for other people and not for them. Didn’t meet their kitchen table needs.
So, let’s not fall into that trap again. I was disheartened last week when Donald Trump started the circus again and started talking about raiding Greenland and taking the Panama Canal. I was disheartened not by Trump’s madness, but by the responses that I saw everybody, like 5-year-olds on a soccer field, all running to the ball on Panama Canal.
And we have to realize this is a moment when the American people don’t care about the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, or Donald Trump’s root canal. They care about whether or not their young people are going to have the opportunities that they should have in education, whether or not their families are going to be able to afford the mortgage, or if the young folks in their families can afford the rent or afford to get a home to start their own families and make communities resilient.
The American people are really concerned when they look up and they see the ecological challenges that we have now that are present in the headlines in places like California, for instance. And they want to see leadership that’s taking responsibility around those challenges.
And so I would just implore my friends to think about the Venn diagram of consensus that we have about shared challenges, the protection of shared freedoms, and shared ambitions for our country.
I would put an issue, Daniella, like housing affordability front and center. That is of concern everywhere in America. Whether or not you’re a U.S. senator whose name will be on the ballot next year, or if you’re a governor who now has to figure out how to tend to the needs of displaced middle-class folk who’ve just had the trauma of this massive fire in California, or if you are one of the mayors coming into Washington, D.C., now for the U.S. Conference of Mayors to talk about what the future of municipal life and urban life and metro life looks like in this country, if you’re not dealing with the housing challenge, you’re not meeting the needs of your people and you will face the consequences of that in an election.
Stop being all things to all people but help everybody locate themselves in the policies that you are advancing.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly right. My parents always used to say that to me: can’t be all things to all people. So this week, President Biden is giving a range of speeches to wrap up his last week in Washington, including his farewell address to the nation on Wednesday night, which we are taping this beforehand. I imagine he’ll touch on many of the highlights and challenges from his four years in office during that speech. He had a very productive term, but his legacy is complicated, especially in light of the election results last November.
So, can you talk a little bit about how you think historians will reflect on President Biden’s legacy in five or 10 years?
Gaspard: You know, legacy is a tricky thing. I think that President Biden might take a little bit of encouragement as he looks at how very, very quickly Donald Trump’s legacy was rehabilitated after being a man twice impeached, thrice indicted, and having exhorted a shocking, traumatizing riot in Capitol Hill to attempt to subvert the outcome of an election, yet here he is marching back into office. So this whole notion of public perception, legacy, it’s tricky. Even the assessments of historians have a prejudice to them, as you and I know incredibly well.
I’ll say this: First, on a personal level, I’m very much looking forward to the address by President Biden on Wednesday. I think that this is a man of dignity and nobility who has served his country well, who is deserving of the opportunity to put his coda on what the service has meant and what it’s represented. I’ve had the privilege of knowing the president since he was a U.S. senator working with my community on some solidarity issues for Haitian Americans. And throughout it, I’ve just found him to be an extraordinarily generous person.
I think that when historians look back at that moment, they’ll see a set of actions that were deployed by a man who had that generosity and his empathy as the animating value set in his presidency. I believe that the decisions that he made coming out of the pandemic and the things that he did to shore up our democracy and democratic practice in this country are the kinds of things that will be noted long into the future.
I do think that as part of that legacy and as part of the interrogation of this moment, it’s natural that questions will come up about whether or not the president should have run for reelection, what the importance of that decision was, and its implications. You and I have no way of knowing that because all the objects in our mirror are closer than they appear right now—
Gibbs Léger: Indeed.
Gaspard: —and that distorts our perception. But I think that those essential strengths of his will be reflected upon kindly and well and will continue to inspire generations of public servants.
I also think that all of us should draw some important lessons from the memorials to President [Jimmy] Carter last week for his funeral. We know the kind of caricature that the right wing in this country made of President Carter. I’d also say that there are many fellow Democrats who did not race to embrace much of President Carter’s legacy coming out of the landslide victory that Ronald Reagan won in 1980. And too many were willing to look past his important contributions and to not understand the ways that he centered diplomacy—not just the broad diplomacy, at home as well— as we extend grace to those who disagree with us as a real centering strength of President Carter.
We saw that last week. And I think that President Biden and all of us and the historians that you asked me about should take note of that and understand there’s an opportunity for a different kind of reflection on all this. In your first question, I talked about the hollowed-out factory towns in this country. We’re going to wake up, Daniella, five years from now, 10 years from now, and we’re going to see that the public sector and the private sector together made a set of decisions incentivized by Joe Biden’s actions that led to massive investments in electric vehicle batteries, in microchip processing, and all kinds of things in those old factory towns, that’s going to lead to a revival of those towns.
That’s going to be part of the Biden story and legacy as well. It didn’t accrue to the benefit of Democrats in an election, but it’s going to matter historically.
Gibbs Léger: Right. So, even though we’re all taking a deep breath after this very exhausting presidential election cycle—
Gaspard: The deepest breath. There’s not enough oxygen for it right now.
Gibbs Léger: Lots of woo-sah happening. We don’t have time to waste. We have a very important set of midterms happening in 2026 that’ll be here before we know it, followed by another consequential presidential election cycle shortly after that.
So where should the Democratic Party go from here? And how do you think Democrats should go about addressing the challenges that you have talked about that have emerged in this cycle and strengthening or changing their message?
Gaspard: So, I was hoping that you would go specifically to the party. I have a little bit of experience—
Gibbs Léger: A little bit.
Gaspard: —just a little bit with the party and campaigns and DNC and all those good things that make reference to the name of this podcast. What’s the name of this podcast?
Gibbs Léger: It’s “The Tent.”
Gaspard: It’s “The Tent,” right? So, I think the Democrats need to think about the tent in a capacious way, in an expansive way, and need to think of it as literally a tent with an open portal and not a vault.
And I think that too often when we talk about our politics, when we talk about our progressive politics, when we activate around our spaces, we turn them into vaults instead of tents, and they’re not expansive enough, and we’re not creating enough opportunity for ourselves to make enough common cause with people who broadly share our values, people who will, in poll after poll, agree with us on what needs to happen with Social Security and Medicare, what needs to happen with elder care, what needs to happen with early childhood education, people who agree with us on bodily autonomy, folks who care deeply about protecting basic foundational tenets in this country—all of the individual bite-sized things that we wrap ourselves in, that we believe in firmly are broadly popular in this country.
But I think that turning the tent into a vault, sounding exclusive, sounding sanctimonious at times, and a tendency to put the cart of policymaking before the horse of story and value gets in our way. We need more Democrats coming and having conversations on podcasts like “The Tent” and so many others.
But showing up with some vulnerability, some humility in those conversations, demonstrating an ability to hear and listen and to engage in a way that says, “You know what? We heard you on questions of law and order. We heard you on what it means to truly build an inclusive economy. We hear you that the institutions that we seem to be defending, the status quo institutions, are not working for you. They’re not delivering the health care that your family needs. They’re not delivering on the ladders of fairness into the upper rungs of the middle-class economy. They’re not delivering in ways that assures public safety for all. And we got to fix those things. And we fix those things by first listening to you and having some sense of what it means to lift up a majority project in the Democratic Party that’s speaking to our universal value of fairness in an America that rewards hard work and creates dignity and outcomes for all.”
I think that a party that does that, and that sits in a little bit of storytelling and shows up with some vulnerability, and can sound human in these spaces and not talk in acronyms and not speak about a bunch of legislation that people feel as if was completely divorced from their actual needs—if we can be caught listening and caught trying on these fundamental issues of economic inclusion and power building for low-wage service workers, for instance, I think we’re going to be OK. I think America will be OK.
Gibbs Léger: Well on that positive and forward-looking note we’ll end this here. Patrick, I want to thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Gaspard: Thank you so much for having me, Daniella.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: All right, folks, that’s going to be it for us this week.
Before we go, we’ve got to talk about football. We are in the thick of the NFL playoffs. Colin, there were some great games this past weekend. Look, neither of our teams are in it. At least you guys are getting a new coach.
Seeberger: Yes. It is the end of the Mike McCarthy era for the Dallas Cowboys, and I could not be more excited.
Gibbs Léger: I don’t understand what took them so long, but cool. I have to say, most of the games were blowouts this weekend.
Seeberger: They were.
Gibbs Léger: And—
Seeberger: The Commanders game was great, though.
Gibbs Léger: The Commanders game was very good. I’m very disappointed in the outcome, obviously, because, listen, obviously I’m not a Commanders fan. I do like Jayden Daniels. I think he’s going to be—he is a star. He will be a great star. And it pains me that he’s in our division. Deep, deep pain. However, they go to play—who do they play? They play the Lions?
Seeberger: They play the Lions this week.
Gibbs Léger: Oh yeah, it’s the end of the road for them.
Seeberger: Yes. I will say, I am very much rooting for the Detroit Lions. I feel like they are the team that, if your team is not in it still, everybody can rally behind the Lions.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly.
Seeberger: I mean, I feel like them and the Bills—because neither of them have ever won a Super Bowl. But yeah, you have another New York team, so.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I don’t really mess with the Bills too much.
Seeberger: We don’t need to add the Bills to the mix.
Gibbs Léger: No.
Seeberger: I mean, I guess it was shocking how poorly some of the teams played. Or Sam Darnold, who’s had an all-star season, right?
Gibbs Léger: Right, but when it counts, like, what was that? Even my 7-year-old son was like, “I don’t understand why he’s playing so poorly.” I was like, “Neither do I, child. Neither do I.”
But I am excited for this weekend’s games. I mean, look, I think if we had Kansas City and the Lions in the Super Bowl, that would be amazing. I’d still have to root for the Lions. I wouldn’t want Taylor [Swift] to be upset, but I’ve got to root for the Lions.
Seeberger: I mean, look, I am so done with the Kansas City Chiefs’ dominance. I would be happy for Taylor. However, I guess if I could find solace in the Chiefs potentially winning another Super Bowl, it would be the only team to have won three Super Bowls in a row.
Gibbs Léger: Yes.
Seeberger: Which is—
Gibbs Léger: That’s pretty cool.
Seeberger: —pretty incredible.
Gibbs Léger: It is.
Seeberger: So you’ve got to give it up for them, right?
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Yeah, I don’t know. I feel like there’s a lot of Chiefs hate coming from folks these days, but whatever. I love Travis Kelce. I want him to also be happy.
Seeberger: Of course, of course.
Gibbs Léger: I don’t really care about the rest of the team. I’m excited to see what Taylor wears to the game.
Seeberger: Always.
Gibbs Léger: Her NFL fashion fits have been—
Seeberger: So good.
Gibbs Léger: —on fire—
Seeberger: So good.
Gibbs Léger: —this entire season. I’m loving it. Anyway, go Lions. Very, very excited. I always get sad at the end of football season because it’s the end of football season.
Seeberger: Well, you know what is coming.
Gibbs Léger: What’s coming?
Seeberger: Not next week, but the week after. It is “The Bachelor” starting back up again.
Gibbs Léger: Thank you, Colin!
Seeberger: Yes!
Gibbs Léger: I forgot all about that. Oh, yes!
Seeberger: See?
Gibbs Léger: OK, thank you. All right.
Seeberger: We can look forward to things—
Gibbs Léger: We can.
Seeberger: —in the weeks and months ahead.
Gibbs Léger: We’re going to need a lot of that.
Seeberger: Yep.
Gibbs Léger: All right, folks. Like I said before, it’s cold and flu season, so please take care of yourselves, and wear masks if you’re coughing and stuff, and be considerate of other people, please.
Seeberger: Stay at home. You’re sick?
Gibbs Léger: Or stay at home.
Seeberger: Yes.
Gibbs Léger: How about that? Try that. That’d be great. All right.
Seeberger: Works for me.
Gibbs Léger: We will talk to you next week.
[Musical transition]
Gibbs Léger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer. Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests of “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.