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, it’s March. It’s National Noodle Month.
Gibbs Léger: Whoo! Also, it’s my birthday month, so like, perfect, wonderful.
Seeberger: Well two great things that go together.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. I love a noodle. Who doesn’t love a noodle? So many different types.
Seeberger: I love an Asian noodle—
Seeberger: —a pasta—the list goes on and on. I’m a huge pho guy.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I’m a big, big fan of noodles.
Seeberger: Yeah, yeah. Well, I hear you had a great conversation this week.
Gibbs Léger: That’s right, I did. I got to speak to Zac Petkanas about Trump’s joint address to Congress, how Trump and DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency] are failing the American people, and how the left is responding.
Seeberger: Zac’s analysis and message guidance is always so spot on, so I’m really excited to hear what he thought of Trump’s joint address and where the left should go from here. But first, we’ve got to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: That we do, Colin. Now, I am sure that a lot of our listeners by now have heard that last Friday, Trump hosted a “dumpster fire” of an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
Seeberger: You can say that again.
Gibbs Léger: I mean, that’s an understatement of how bad this was. Trump and [Vice President] JD Vance basically ambushed Zelenskyy in front of reporters—reporters including a Russian propagandist who snuck into the Oval Office.
Seeberger: Yeah, I’m sure it was a big accident.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire career. I mean, Trump is dead set on doing [President Vladimir] Putin’s bidding. This is very clear now. He claims that he’s interested in peace, but that’s obviously not his intention. He is throwing our allies and our security under the bus so that he can preserve his relationship with the Russian dictator. And as of this recording, he’s paused delivery of all ongoing U.S. aid to Ukraine—including arms and ammunition that were already assigned to Ukraine and paid for with funds by Congress.
This sounds really familiar, you know? Like maybe this happened before?
Gibbs Léger: He’s also apparently stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine, which to date has played a crucial role in ensuring Ukrainian troops are aware of Russian troop and weaponry movements.
Trump is bullying Ukraine while simultaneously cozying up to dangerous, weak figureheads like Vladimir Putin. And it’s why Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, told the press that the U.S. position is now basically in line with Russia’s interests. Let that sink in for a minute.
Seeberger: I’d rather not.
Gibbs Léger: But we must, because that is insane.
And while Trump is schmoozing with losers, he’s alienating our actual friends and allies. Zelenskyy’s already turned to European leaders for security guarantees. And this weekend, European allies convened to develop a ceasefire plan without Washington. And while it will take some time for Europe to develop its arms industry as a viable alternative to the United States, be clear: European nations are doing this now.
Seeberger: That’s exactly right. And honestly, who can blame them, Daniella, when the U.S. is becoming just as unreliable and hostile to sovereignty as autocratic governments like Russia? Look, we all want the conflict in Ukraine to end. It’s heartbreaking. But to see Donald Trump turn the United States into Putin’s puppet in shaping the future of this conflict is just disgusting.
Seeberger: He’s running American foreign policy like a schoolyard bully. If he really wanted peace, he would be pressing Russia, not Zelenskyy, to stand down. Instead, he’s calling Zelenskyy, not Putin, a dictator, putting on insane antics like we saw in the Oval Office meeting last week. It’s horrifying.
I know you mentioned Putin’s spokesperson earlier, Daniella. We’ve seen other Russian officials like Dmitry Medvedev, a top security official and former Russian president and prime minister, flock to social media to cheer Trump on. I mean, when that’s the kind of company that you’re keeping, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve probably taken a wrong turn, right?
Gibbs Léger: I think so, yes.
Seeberger: At every turn, Trump is incentivizing Putin’s imperialistic vision to rebuild the Soviet Union. But a wider war in Europe would mean massive costs for the United States. And we should remember that Russia’s ballistic missiles are still pointed at American cities.
Yeah. And I just have to address this because I think that there are a lot of Americans out there who are feeling squeezed by problems we have here at home.
Donald Trump is not pulling support from Ukraine in order to make your life better. He’s not investing in programs to improve Americans’ health care, access to affordable housing or child care, or to improve the quality of the education of our kids. Heck, he’s simultaneously backing a budget plan that would impose severe cuts to programs like Medicaid. He’s supported some of the dangerous cuts that we’ve seen from DOGE that threaten the American people’s physical security.
The truth is that the United States is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We have the money to meet our national security needs and take care of our people.
Seeberger: But Trump, the same man backing trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the top 1 percent, wants you to think otherwise. Make it make sense.
Gibbs Léger: I can’t. I cannot.
Seeberger: You cannot. Donald Trump’s approach not only harms our standing overseas, it’s harming us right here at home. He’s stoking worldwide animosity in attacking the programs and partnerships that keep Americans safe and healthy. Daniella, is that what the American people actually want?
Gibbs Léger: No, Colin, it is not. And speaking of what Americans want, remember all those promises that Trump made about making life easier for the rest of us?
Seeberger: Oh, I heard a thing or two about that.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, maybe bringing down costs? Have you heard about that, too?
Gibbs Léger: Well, one month into his presidency and you can kiss those promises goodbye.
Gibbs Léger: His tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China went into effect on Tuesday, and they’re threatening our economy in a big way already. As of this recording, the administration has not backed off the tariffs, but it’s easy to understand why they would.
These three countries are America’s largest trading partners. Forty percent of our imports came from them last year. The Peterson Institute [for International Economics] found that these tariffs will drive up costs, disrupt supply chains, and cost the average family $1,200 a year. Car prices could cost $3,000 more, and groceries and housing could get even more expensive, all thanks to these tariffs.
Target, for example, just announced that they’ll likely have to hike their prices because of these tariffs. You know, Colin, this is going to be the largest tax increase on the middle class in American history. And it’s all to give massive tax breaks to billionaires paid for with our money. So much for making America affordable again, right?
Consumer confidence is plummeting, and economists are predicting a serious recession on the horizon. Larry Kudlow, a Republican economist and Fox News anchor who worked in Trump’s first administration, said that, quote, “the economic signals are flashing slower growth and higher inflation,” a combination known as stagflation, which ravaged the U.S. in the ‘70s.
It’s no wonder why Donald Trump sent his commerce secretary out on Fox News on Tuesday to relay that the administration may halt these tariffs soon. And while the stock market is just one indicator, and it doesn’t necessarily dictate the health of the economy as a whole, it is telling that it tanked early this week when it became clear that these tariffs were going to go into effect.
Seeberger: It’s so ridiculous, Daniella, and self-defeating, right? Trump is catapulting us backwards economically to the detriment of just so many Americans. We’re talking about farmers, small-business owners, parents—the list goes on. Also, if you’re a business owner, how on earth are you supposed to be able to actually plan for the future when this administration keeps seesawing day after day after day—will they, will they not, will they, will they not—on tariffs?
Seeberger: And that whole approach—and bashing our allies like Canada, when we should be working together to confront our biggest economic competitor, China—really makes no sense at all. So the ball is in Donald Trump’s court. He and MAGA Republicans fully own these problems. They actually could vote to take these tariffs off the American people’s backs, but the Republican majorities in Congress refuse to stand up to Donald Trump.
Seeberger: Where is their bill to lower the cost of groceries? Where is their bill to fix the housing crisis? Why are Republicans cutting health care instead of making it more accessible and affordable? This is why recent polling is actually showing that more than 6 in 10 Americans say Trump hasn’t gone far enough to lower costs. And recent polling earlier in the week from Marist showed that independents, by 20 points, say that Trump is changing the economy for the worse.
People aren’t buying what you’re selling, Donald. I might recommend changing course before it’s too late.
Gibbs Léger: Indeed. And I like calling it the “Trump slump,” because that seems really fitting for where we are.
Seeberger: No doubt, Daniella, no doubt. Well, that’s 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, Instagram, Bluesky, and Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Zac Petkanas in just a beat.
Gibbs Léger: Zac Petkanas is a founding partner of Focal Point Strategy. He previously served as communications director for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and ran communications for the House Committee on Rules. He also served as senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee and spent nearly a decade helping run communications for Harry Reid’s 2010 Senate reelection and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Zac, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Zac Petkanas: Thank you so much for having me.
Gibbs Léger: So, Trump gave his joint address to Congress last night, which was predictably full of wild tangents and factual inaccuracies, like his completely fabricated Social Security numbers. What’s your reaction to what we heard, and what does it indicate about his ongoing priorities? Like, is he trying to legitimize DOGE going after Social Security?
Petkanas: Yeah, I have to say that I was a little surprised at the speech from a couple points. The first is, I thought it was actually a rather tame Donald Trump speech. Going into it, he said that he was planning to make a lot of news around it. I actually don’t think he did. He mostly just doubled down on his agenda to date.
But I was particularly struck by the parts of the agenda that he decided to double down on and what he decided to not talk about. The stuff that he decided to talk about, right, was the red meat issues—
Petkanas: —the stuff that was really focused on his base, and really didn’t do very much at all to expand the tent beyond the people that are already diehard Donald Trump supporters. And what he didn’t talk about was what I thought would have been, frankly, the focus of his whole thing.
Petkanas: Which was about articulating a plan to get costs down for families.
Petkanas: That is a thing that we know—not just from polling, but just from talking to anybody on the street—that what they are concerned about are rising and, frankly, already high prices—whether it’s eggs or other groceries.
And he gave only passing mention to that and spent an enormous amount of time on things like the problems with Social Security. I found that was astonishing.
Petkanas: Social Security, one of the most successful and popular programs in the country. He spent an enormous amount of time, I think to your point, laying the groundwork for what is to come down the line: Large cuts to these incredibly popular programs like Social Security, like Medicare, like Medicaid. He laid a predicate in order to do that. And I truly don’t understand that from a political perspective, let alone a policy one.
Gibbs Léger: Mm-hmm. Yeah, it was very telling. And the ticking through of the Social Security, which of course those numbers were wrong and inaccurate—
Gibbs Léger: But yeah, it was wild to witness.
A number of economic firms and think tanks have found that Trump’s tariff plans will have an awful impact on the economy. Peterson Institute, for example, recently reported that as a result of Trump’s tariffs, American families will have to pay around $1,200 more a year. Conservative groups like the Tax Foundation have found similar numbers. They found costs will go up on cars and groceries, housing and electronics. Polling also shows a lot of dissatisfaction with how Trump is handling the economy, especially when it comes to the DOGE cuts.
So how much of a liability do you think this actually is for Trump? And what should Democrats do about that?
Petkanas: I think the liability is enormous for Trump and the administration. I think it’s one of the chief issues that any administration is facing right now. And what I find so puzzling and perplexing is that while Donald Trump spent an enormous amount of time on the campaign trail saying that he was going to treat it like his number one issue—let’s remember, he said he was going to get prices down on Day 1.
Petkanas: Right? And we’re now on day, I don’t know, 40-something, and it warranted merely a passing flourish in his joint address. I think it is a huge political liability because it is so easy to juxtapose who he’s actually fighting for when you bring up the costs.
Petkanas: You mentioned the Peterson Institute and the Tax Foundation. These are not liberal organizations.
Petkanas: These are conservative organizations who are saying that it is going to raise the costs for families. So he’s proactively doing things that are going to raise the costs for families and everything.
I mean, everyone talks about eggs, but it’s not just eggs now. I mean, it’s all breakfast foods and meat and produce, as well as household items and gasoline and energy costs.
Petkanas: So all of this on regular, normal, everyday people who are just trying to make it by—this is going to go up.
But what is his other priority while he’s raising costs on families? He is lowering costs on billionaires and corporations, many of which ship American jobs overseas. I mean, the House Republicans just passed this budget that the main piece of it was cutting the tax rate for people like Elon Musk and other billionaires in his administration. And they’re paying for it by making things harder.
So in that case, they’re taking away Medicaid, which I know we’re going to talk about a little later. But in this case, it’s actually increasing the costs on families with these tariffs. So I think it’s a huge liability. I think that the way that Democrats need to talk about this is in two ways. One is we need to really make sure that we bring it home. We cannot Democrat this, where—
Gibbs Léger: What do you mean by that?
Petkanas: Well let me put on my economic glasses, and let me talk to you about all the important economic, macroeconomic studies. I mean taking it up to this academic, ivory tower level. And let’s just talk about what it actually means—that when you sit down for a meal and you buy groceries to put food on the table, it’s going to cost you more. Your sneakers for your kids are going to cost more. The car you’re going to buy is going to cost more. The house you want to buy is going to cost more because the materials, the lumber, the steel, the other pieces—all this is going to cost more. And so one is bringing it down to how people actually live and interact with these costs.
But the second thing is I think we need to be highlighting the people who were duped by Donald Trump. The key constituency is the Republicans. And just come back to farmers. I mean, farmers are just getting it at all ends with this administration.
Petkanas: I read right before I came on here that farm bankruptcies are at 34 percent thanks to the Trump trade wars.
Petkanas: That’s what the farm groups are saying. And so we’re seeing an existential threat to family farms as a direct result of this policy. And I’m sure there are a number of Democrats who are farmers, but if you ask me which constituency just sort of speaks Democrats, I wouldn’t say farmers.
Petkanas: And so highlighting this group and the pain that they are suffering at the hands of this administration, I think, is a really important thing for us to do.
Gibbs Léger: So speaking of DOGE cuts, Elon Musk—who at this point is acting like our second president—is wildly unpopular. His antics and the entire Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE—I really hate saying DOGE— they’ve received a growing number of boos at constituent town halls across the country held by Republican legislators. Hollywood really could not have come up with a better villain.
So how should Democrats make Musk and the Republicans who support DOGE’s efforts pay politically for the damage that they’ve caused?
Petkanas: Yeah. So I think it’s starting with two things. And I’m sure there are others, but let’s start off with two.
The first thing is that Elon Musk himself is deeply unpopular. And so tying Elon Musk both to the cuts that are being made as well as to Donald Trump is incredibly important in order to help educate the American people about what’s going on and who’s making these cuts.
And then I think the second thing is—going back to the original advice about how we talk about bringing the tariffs home and to win on that politically—is to bring the DOGE cuts home.
And I think that there are people who are doing it well, and I think there are people that are doing it poorly. I think the people who are doing it well are really bringing it home to how it is directly impacting people.
Petkanas: So last night, Donald Trump talked about how he was going to cure childhood cancer.
Petkanas: Which—I think everyone can get behind the fact that we should cure childhood cancer.
Petkanas: I tweeted out afterward: “I don’t know how you plan to cure childhood cancer when DOGE is gutting all the research to cure childhood cancer.”
Petkanas: Those things don’t comport. And so that’s a real thing.
I come back to the farmers. We’ve talked about how they are getting hit because of the tariffs. They’re also getting hit because of the DOGE cuts. A huge number of our farmers rely on purchases from the federal government, whether it’s USAID [United States Agency for International Development] or others. And so when you have DOGE and Elon Musk just putting a stop on USAID contracts, which leave huge amounts of produce just rotting in ports and payments for work done not going out to farmers, this is a real impact on real people’s lives.
Second to that—so I think that’s the right way to do this. I think the wrong way to do this is to focus on the federal workers. As sympathetic as I am to what they’re going through right now, their uncertainty about their particular jobs, I think, is not a particularly effective way to get the people who, across the country, are also very not secure about their jobs to get sympathy for that and to win them over on our side.
And so I think we should be talking about the things that they are doing—
Petkanas: —and the things that we are losing when they lose their jobs, but less about their personal stories. For example, firing FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] workers, right?
Petkanas: The way that impacts with people is not because, yes, it’s very sad that 500 people lost their jobs. But the way it impacts people out in the world is, “I’m not sure it’s safe to get on a plane.”
Petkanas: So really bringing it home to what they’re doing and why their job is necessary is important. And I also think staying away from things like the email that Elon Musk asked for everyone to do what they’re doing in their job, right?
Petkanas: I mean, sure, that is probably the most obnoxious way to do that.
Petkanas: There are a thousand ways better to go about doing that. Doing it on a Saturday night and not having contingency plans for people who are on vacation, not checking with agency adverse—like, all of that granted, sure. But there are better reasons and better ways to highlight what they’re doing than someone asking what people are doing with their jobs that are taxpayer funded.
Petkanas: And so I think really focusing on making the case that people will become less safe, that they will lose out on key benefits that they rely on, and that the world and America will become less of a strong and safe place if people lose their jobs, rather than focusing on the actual personal stories.
Gibbs Léger: It’s really good advice. Congress is currently going through a process called reconciliation where they set the budget for the year. And as part of that, they’re considering huge cuts to Medicaid in direct violation of Trump’s promise, of course, during the campaign to leave Medicaid alone.
So what’s the message that you want to hear from folks on the left about the damage that these cuts would inflict on everyday Americans?
Petkanas: So first off, I want to hear about it all the time.
Petkanas: I mean, we need to be talking about this all the time. And I know that some of the signs from yesterday on the floor got a little flack, but I have to tell you, I thought some of them were silly, but the ones that said, “Save Medicaid,” I was for it.
I don’t necessarily think that Congressman [Al] Green (D-TX) trying to shout down the president was maybe the best tactic, but after he did it, I said, “Well, he was on message.” Because what was he shouting? He was saying, “No mandate to cut Medicaid.”
And so the first answer to your question is we need to be talking about it all the time and bringing everything back to that and juxtaposing it with: They’re trying to take away our Medicaid, they’re trying to take away our health care, so that they can pay for tax breaks for billionaires and corporations, many of which are shipping American jobs overseas.
And if we have that kind of message discipline, I not only think that Republicans will pay a political price because they’ve already taken that vote with the budget, but I actually think we have a chance of taking down this bill. Because if the Medicaid cuts are so politically toxic that they can’t do it, that’s how they’re paying for all this other stuff—
Petkanas: —like the tax breaks, like the mass deportation and family separation increase in the budget—$300 billion they want for that. That money comes from somewhere, and that comes from Medicaid cuts.
So if we are able to take away that huge pay-for because it’s so politically toxic, a lot of the house of cards could potentially fall. So I think that’s why it’s so important that we speak loudly and clearly and focus on Medicaid.
Gibbs Léger: So we like to end these interviews when we can on a hopeful and purposeful note. So where are you seeing the left have success right now in terms of holding Republicans and Trump accountable? What lessons can Democrats take away from the deluge of hate that Republicans have been getting at town halls, for example?
Petkanas: Sure. Well the first thing I’ll say is, it’s actually working. What we’re doing is working. And it may not seem that way because we’re out of power and they’re taking a lot of actions which we all find horrific and are really damaging to the country.
But Donald Trump, at this moment, has the lowest approval rating of any president since World War II at this point in his term—except for himself in his first term.
Petkanas: He was a little lower then. But everybody else had high approval ratings this much into their term. Joe Biden did. George W. Bush did. Bill Clinton did. Barack Obama did. And that was not where it started. It started higher, and we have seen a precipitous decline in his approval. And I think that that is because of two things.
The first is the chaos and the indiscriminate cuts that are being made are starting to have an impact, and there’s fatigue around that—whether it’s farmers who are having the rug pulled out from under them or cancer research or any of the things that we talked about. So that’s that.
And then the second piece is that I think that we’re starting to see people are getting out of their malaise a little bit. The election was very tough for all of us, and it’s been a little more than four months—I think actually exactly four months since then. And I think people are starting to see that there are chips in the armor, and that we can actually make a difference.
I think the House Republican budget, passing that was a really key moment in getting people. I said, “Oh, we can actually run against something.”
Petkanas: They want to go and cut $888 billion from Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks for corporations to put American jobs overseas and for billionaires like Elon Musk. That’s a message we can run against.
And so I think some people are starting to wake up. And so my call is—for Democrats and for those who oppose this administration—is that if we keep up the right kind of pressure, we will see his numbers go down and we will take back the House in 2026.
But that takes enormous message discipline, and we have to avoid what we did in the first Trump administration, which is that every single thing that he did, we came at it every single angle. To some, he was a tyrant. To others, he was a maniacal genius. To others, he was totally incompetent. To others, it was—I mean, every single thing he did, we had 15 different messages to go about it. I think what is different this time is that we all have a consensus about how we’re going to approach this, and that he is trying to take things away from us, to hurt us so that he can rig the system in favor of billionaires. And if we’re able to stay on that message, like I think we have been really good at for the last 40 days, if we can continue on that, his numbers are going to go down, and we’re going to take this country back.
Gibbs Léger: Well that is a great note to end this conversation on, Zac. I want to thank you for all the work that you do, and thank you for joining us on “The Tent.”
Petkanas: Thanks for having me.
Gibbs Léger: That’s going to do it for us this week, folks. Be sure to go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, Colin, got to talk about the Oscars.
Gibbs Léger: All right, so, I love the red carpet.
Seeberger: Oh, so much fun.
Gibbs Léger: It is so much fun. And I love to see the people who take lots of risks and the people who pull it off. And then there are the people who don’t.
Seeberger: Sorry, Timothée Chalamet.
Gibbs Léger: Sorry, Zoe Saldaña.
Seeberger: I’m sorry, that one worked for me.
Gibbs Léger: What? You mean the thing on top of the thing, and the thing that kind of went out like a thing?
Seeberger: Yeah, the layers. You know what actually did it for me? It was the top, whatever mesh material, and then the gloves really tied it all together.
Gibbs Léger: Wow, I think you’re so wrong. I did not like that. I didn’t like it at all. She’s pulled off some really interesting looks, and I did not like this one at all. It wasn’t for me.
Seeberger: Well it would not be the first time that we have had a difference of opinion. It will not be the last time, listeners.
Gibbs Léger: It will not. Well can we agree that Selena Gomez looked amazing?
Gibbs Léger: Like, jaw-dropping, stunning.
Gibbs Léger: Like, Hollywood royal. Just stunning.
Gibbs Léger: So good. So good.
Seeberger: Selena, Demi Moore.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, fantastic.
Gibbs Léger: Colman Domingo, our favorite.
Seeberger: Colman Domingo—so I can’t wear red like that.
Gibbs Léger: OK, that’s you, Colin.
Seeberger: Yes, that is me. I just, I would never choose a red suit. I feel like I would be ready to go be the maître d’ at a restaurant or something.
Gibbs Léger: How dare you.
Seeberger: But for me, we continue to bow down to Jeremy Strong, who always brings it.
Gibbs Léger: Always takes risks. He looked great.
Seeberger: He looked great, per usual. I thought Andrew Garfield in that brown—I think it was Prada—tuxedo was—
Gibbs Léger: He has been killing it on the red carpets this season. And all the new fans to Andrew Garfield, welcome, there is room on this bandwagon for you. But we have been loving him for a very long time.
Seeberger: Where have you been all night?
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Let’s talk about the opening and Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande.
Gibbs Léger: Just angels.
Seeberger: What I love about “Wicked” being split into two films is that we basically just get a year and a half, two years of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande being everywhere.
Gibbs Léger: I know. And the way Ariana was looking at Cynthia when she was going off to sing her solo part, I was like, “That was such love.” It was so sweet.
Gibbs Léger: So I grew up singing. I am not a professional singer at all. Don’t ask me to sing. I will not do it for you. But I know a thing or two about music. I could read music before I could read words. Cynthia is sickening. If you watch her when she sings, it looks like she’s having a conversation.
Gibbs Léger: It looks like she’s talking.
Gibbs Léger: Like, when Ariana’s singing, she’s amazing, but you can tell.
Gibbs Léger: Every other normal human being, when they’re singing, you can tell. She literally looks like she’s just breathing. And to command that kind of voice and that kind of control?
Seeberger: Yeah, the control.
Gibbs Léger: I could not love her more.
Seeberger: —a one of a kind, I say this with the most admiration and respect, diva of our generation.
Gibbs Léger: Oh yes, she is an absolute, complete diva.
Seeberger: Should we talk about the acting?
Gibbs Léger: We should talk about the acting a little bit.
Seeberger: I mean, feels appropriate.
Gibbs Léger: I guess it is the Oscars. Sure, fine, whatever.
Seeberger: So personally, I didn’t see too many films this year. However, I have to give it up to Kieran Culkin. I’m just so happy for him. His speech was hilarious, too.
Gibbs Léger: It was so funny.
Seeberger: Yeah, it was like, got to go cook this fourth baby up, right?
Seeberger: So funny. I was just so happy for him. He’s so talented, and somebody who’s really persisted and lasted in what’s such a tough industry, right—
Seeberger: —is, I think, a real credit to just how talented he truly is.
Seeberger: So I was very happy for him. Also, “Flow”? I don’t know if you saw the animated film, “Flow”?
Gibbs Léger: Apparently I need to see “Flow” because I love cats.
Seeberger: Yeah, well, I also love cats, which is actually kind of a new thing for me. But I am excited to have a non-Disney animated movie that I hopefully can introduce to my daughter. Apparently it’s on HBO Max, so I will have to get busy.
Gibbs Léger: Great. I have to tell a very funny story about Kieran Culkin. So I have, as we all do, numerous group chats. And so one of my chats, we were talking about the Oscars, and one of my friends—who shall remain nameless because I don’t want to embarrass them—said, “So I was today years old when I realized Kieran Culkin and Macaulay Culkin were brothers.”
Seeberger: I’m sorry, what?
Gibbs Léger: And the responses were—I just did the eyes emoji. And then somebody was like, “I …” And then somebody said, “You know what? It was really brave of you to admit that in public and say that.” And then one of my friends was like, “That’s just so strange because you watch ‘Succession.’ And then, how many people have the last name Culkin? And then also, they look alike.”
Seeberger: Where have you been all my life?
Gibbs Léger: It was the funniest thing. I mean, I’m still laughing about it. It was so hilarious to me, but also very sweet.
Gibbs Léger: That he’s like, “I did not realize that they were brothers.” Anyway, to you, my dear friend, we listen and we do not judge.
Seeberger: Yes, that’s correct.
Gibbs Léger: But I judged a little bit.
Seeberger: Well, other performances—I’ve not gotten to see it yet, but Mikey Madison, I’m super excited to catch “Anora.”
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. I need to watch it.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, no, I’ve heard good things.
Seeberger: Although that dress?
Gibbs Léger: Wait, do we not like it?
Seeberger: With the pink bow? It was—
Gibbs Léger: Oh, I know, but you know what? She’s young. She’ll grow into her style or something.
Seeberger: Yeah, it was giving high school homecoming for me.
Gibbs Léger: A little bit. I did love the director and his speech about the importance of movie theaters and releasing things in the theater before it goes to streaming, which I thought was a pretty bold thing to say, considering streaming is taking over the movie industry.
Seeberger: You could say.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. But I get it, especially as one of our local theaters here is closing down. E Street theater.
Seeberger: That’s right, yeah.
Gibbs Léger: I know. Support your local movie theaters, folks. And on that note, that’s going to be it for us. We are headed into peak allergy season.
Gibbs Léger: So, let me play Dr. Allergist Daniella, here, and start taking your allergy medicine now. You’ll thank me in a month.
Seeberger: Brought to you by Zyrtec.
Gibbs Léger: Take care. We’ll talk to you next week.
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, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, 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.