Return to Transcripts main page
The Chris Wallace Show
Can A Wider Regional War Be Avoided?; With No More "Big Events" Left, Where Is The Race Now?; Why Is Trump Ducking Big Stages?; Is Trump Politicizing Helene A Smart Strategy?; Movie Theater Chains Spending Billions In Upgrades. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired October 05, 2024 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:47]
CHRIS WALLACE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, and welcome. It's time to break down the big stories with some smart people. Today, we're asking, as the Middle East teeters on the brink of all-out war, does President Biden have any influence left to limit the conflict?
Then sane-washing Trump. We'll discuss claims the media is sanitizing some of the former president's outlandish comments.
And gift wrap goat, the chance to give a piece of Tom Brady as a Christmas gift. But it could cost you a lot of money.
The panel is here and ready to go. So sit back, relax, and let's talk about it.
Up first, the world on a knife's edge is fighting in the Middle East heads towards an all-out war. Israel now fighting on two fronts, in Gaza and Lebanon could soon open up a third front with Iran. And the U.S. seemingly powerless to contain the crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The response will be painful.
WALLACE (voice-over): Israel weighing a retaliatory strike against Iran.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, OK, guys, we got to get off the roof.
WALLACE (voice-over): After that regime launched almost 200 missiles across Israel at military and intelligence installations.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States is fully, fully supportive of Israel.
WALLACE (voice-over): But President Biden urging Israel not to go too far in its response.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you support an attack on Iran nuclear sites by Israel?
BIDEN: The answer is no. They have a right to respond, but they should respond, butt they should respond in proportion.
WALLACE (voice-over): But look at the past year when U.S. warnings have mostly been ignored. Biden drew this red line in May.
BIDEN: They go into Rafah. I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah.
WALLACE (voice-over): Less than a week later, Israeli forces raiding that city in Gaza. Then Biden's many proposals for ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.
BIDEN: It's a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages.
We have the basis for a ceasefire.
We put out a statement for a 21-day ceasefire.
WALLACE (voice-over): But two days after that last U.S. initiative, Israel bombed Beirut, killing Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Here with me today, podcaster, journalist and author Kara Swisher, Reihan Salam, president of the Manhattan Institute and National Review contributing editor, New York Times journalist and the Interview Podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and conservative pollster and New York Times opinion writer Kristen Soltis Anderson. Welcome back, everyone. Reihan, can a wider regional war still be avoided?
REIHAN SALAM, PRESIDENT, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: The wider regional war has been going on for about a year now, and Israel is now forcefully engaging in that wider regional war. Iran has been deeply involved, deeply implicated both in the October 7th attack itself, that in Hezbollah's pounding of communities in the north of Israel. And now Israel is doing what it needs to do in order to ensure its security. So this wider regional war has been going on.
WALLACE: But it was through the proxies of Iran.
SALAM: Yes.
WALLACE: Now it's directly between Tehran and Jerusalem. That is different.
SALAM: Well, Iran did launch a missile attack --
WALLACE: Right.
SALAM: -- back in April, as we'll recall. And now look, you know, they're on the back foot. And now Israel is pressing its advantage exactly as it should. Israel is doing things today that they were looking to do in October, way back a year ago, and they were restrained because the Biden administration said then, guys, look, slow it down, 95 percent plus of Israelis are strongly in favor of taking action against Hezbollah because of the incredibly deadly threat it represents to Israel. And now they've demonstrated that they penetrated Hezbollah thoroughly and they have greatly degraded its ability to harm Israelis and others in the region.
WALLACE: Well, as we wait now to see how Israel is going to respond to that barrage of missiles this past week, Iran's new president has warned they will fight back. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[10:05:01]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If the Zionist regime does not stop its crimes, it will face harsher reactions. If they want to respond, they will face a more severe response.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Lulu, how big could a direct conflict between Iran and Israel, not through proxies, but a direct conflict? How bad could that get?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST & HOST, "THE INTERVIEW": It could get very bad. I think we're in a very dangerous period. What kept the Middle East sort of no -- nominally controlled is that there was this sense that there were red lines that neither side was going to cross. So on the one hand, Israel wasn't going to actually launch a direct attack in Iran, which they did with the killing of the leader of Hamas.
And on the other hand, Iran wasn't going to launch missiles directly on a place like Tel Aviv. So what we have here is that all the red lines have been blown through and a very combustible situation. I think at this point President Biden has been urging calm, but those days of calm are well over. And we're now seeing a very, very volatile period.
And it's not really clear what's going to happen, because the real problem here is that, yes, Israel has launched these attacks, but there is no plan for what happens after.
WALLACE: As we showed in the setup piece, President Biden says the Israeli response, which we expect in the next few days should be proportionate, and he ruled out an attack on Iran's nuclear program. Former President Trump didn't think much of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I mean, to make the statement, please leave their nuclear alone. I would tell you that's not the right answer. That was the craziest answer, because you know what, soon they're going to have nuclear weapons and then you're going to have problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Kristen, how much should the U.S. get involved and in what way?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the United States needs to reaffirm that Israel is our number one ally in that region, that we have their back. And I think it's the sense that we have been undercutting them either privately or publicly, that has led to this erosion of trust. The relationship between Bibi Netanyahu and the Biden administration is not great right now.
There's a lot of finger pointing about why that is. But my sense is that Joe Biden does not have a ton of influence over what Bibi Netanyahu does. And so if all along you've thought Bibi is bad and he's handling this incorrectly, I think Biden's actions have made it less easy for the U.S., at least for the next few months until we get a new president absolutely unchanged, to help restrain.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- completely untrue. He's been -- the Biden administration has been giving exactly where it counts, which is enormous amounts of aid, military and otherwise. The fact that they are urging restraint is the traditional role of the United States, not just with Bibi Netanyahu, but throughout the history of the state of Israel.
ANDERSON: But I think there have been things like, for instance, saying, we should -- you all, please, you shouldn't go into Rafah. And then they say, you know what, we're going to go in and were going to find hostages that Hamas has been holding that have not been turned over. I -- I do think --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. How many hostages have been killed? And not only that, how many Palestinians have been killed? And not only that, what is the end game here? You now have the state of Israel fighting in Gaza. You now have the state of Israel fighting in the -- in the north against Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon. And now you have maybe potentially a direct conflict with Iran.
ANDERSON: Because it feels like you're always telling Israel that they have to be the ones that are restrained when it is them who is getting rockets into their --
WALLACE: I want to bring Kara in because it seems to me that what you're describing, Lulu, has -- has actually put the U.S. in kind of the worst of both worlds.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. It is.
WALLACE: On the one hand, we're saying, hey, go slow, don't do this. On the other hand, we're continuing to give them billions of dollars and -- and tons of armaments. I mean, you -- you take off everybody.
KARA SWISHER, PODCAST HOST, "PIVOT" & "ON": Well, I think it's sort of Biden who, he doesn't have influence at all, and no one's going to be listening to him because they're waiting for whoever the next president is. So it doesn't hardly matter because nothing is going to happen in that time period, and therefore they're not going to take any kind of advice from the U.S. Probably what they should be doing is working behind the scenes with other Arab countries to help bring something together. But there's no influence here.
WALLACE: Reihan, this gets to the -- to the bigger question. Can and -- and it goes beyond the Middle East, can our allies and can our adversaries ignore what the American president says without any consequence?
SALAM: Well, there's a perception that President Biden at the moment is incredibly inconstant. There was a little moment at a press conference not long ago where he was asked a question about whether or not Israel would be striking Iranian oil fields, and he gave his usual kind of slapdash answer of, well, we're talking about that, anyway, let's move on. And then immediately, oil prices surged by close to 6 percent on that news. And it caused an enormous amount of panic in the region. That's the kind of thing you don't casually and artlessly share as an aside, during a press conference.
There was a time when the United States and the Biden administration did have more leverage with respect to the conflict in the Middle East, that leverage has steadily diminished, not just because he's a lame duck president, but also because of that same inconstancy that Kristen was describing before, the sense that you're going to be a backseat driver, you're going to undermine your partner, but then you're actually not going to do anything, especially effective.
[10:10:12]
Right now, Israel is taking actions that benefit not just the Israeli people, but it's actually doing things to undermine enemies of the United States. Whereas the Biden administration has been utterly confused and confusing.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- a huge humanitarian cost. I mean, I understand that we can talk geo -- that we can talk geopolitically, but there is a cost in lives and there is a cost in safety. And we are seeing that in Lebanon, we are seeing that in Gaza, and we are seeing that in Israel. And we are seeing that in Israel.
WALLACE: But would you agree with what Reihan said that whether because of inconstancy or incompetence or whatever it is, that people just don't pay that much attention to this President? I don't -- I don't think it's just the lame duck thing that they don't pay that much attention to Joe Biden anymore on the world stage.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: On the world stage or Israel in particular?
WALLACE: On the world stage?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I would say on the world stage, I don't think that that's true. Certainly that isn't true if you think of the Ukraine conflict. I do think it's true when it has to do with Israel, but I don't think it's unique to this particular conflict. We've seen that over and over again because the state of Israel, as any country does, does what's in its best interest. And in this case, this -- this particular president thinks that what's -- this particular leader thinks what's in his best interest is -- is to go forth and try and attack Hezbollah.
WALLACE: On the campaign trail, both candidates in swing states this weekend, as Donald Trump says no to two big chances to reach tens of millions of voters. What's that about?
Then, beyond the damage, the serious impact Hurricane Helene could have on the November election.
And later bowling at the box office, the big changes coming to your local movie theater. I could see you ten pins. You're a good bowler. Is there anything you're bad at?
SWISHER: No.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:16:37]
WALLACE: We are now exactly one month from Election Day, and if this week is any guide, it will be a sprint to the finish. We started with the vice presidential debate, the last scheduled face off of the campaign, and ended with the candidates in a battleground blitz dealing with a new political storm and a real life disaster.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It looks like a war happens.
WALLACE (voice-over): The destruction of Hurricane Helene on full display. For the presidential hopefuls.
TRUMP: The devastation wrought by this storm is incredible. It's -- it's so extensive.
WALLACE (voice-over): Including in the critical swing states of Georgia and North Carolina.
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are at our best when we work together and coordinate resources.
WALLACE (voice-over): Off the trail, Donald Trump facing new legal headwinds following this week's filing from special counsel Jack Smith 2020 election interference case, which argues Trump acted in a private capacity, resorting to crimes to try to stay in office.
TRUMP: It's pure election interference.
WALLACE (voice-over): The 2020 election also taking center stage at a political event, no one saw coming four years ago. Former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney campaigning for Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris.
LIZ CHENEY (R), FORMER WYOMING REPRESENTATIVE: He praised the rioters. I ask you to reject the depraved cruelty of Donald Trump. WALLACE (voice-over): Trump was quick to attack.
TRUMP: Liz Cheney is a stupid war hawk.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Strong note to follow. Kristen, where is this presidential race right now?
ANDERSON: It's very close. And anybody who tells you they are confident that they know how this is going to go, don't listen to them. Nobody should feel confident.
WALLACE: But do you see any advantage geo -- in the geographic swing states? Do you see any advantage in terms of the issues?
ANDERSON: So right now, I think I'd rather be Harris than Trump if only because she is doing so well in these national polls. When you ask voters what are you hearing about the race? She has a better kind of information flow right now. But in the battleground states, it's very interesting if you live in somewhere like Colorado or Ohio, somewhere that's not considered a presidential swing state, your T.V. has plenty of ads for other races, but nothing about Trump and Harris.
But if you live in Arizona or you live in Pennsylvania, you cannot turn out -- on the T.V. without hearing about Kamala Harris is weak on the border or Kamala Harris supports this, that or the other thing that's liberal or conversely, I'm Kamala Harris and I approve this message. And it's her talking about how actually she's really moderate and so on and so forth.
I think in the battleground states, voters are getting more negative messaging about Kamala Harris than voters elsewhere, for sure. That's where all the money is going is to defining her. So these national polls that show her up, I do take them with a bit of a grain of salt. Pennsylvania states like that are all that matters. And right now the polling averages show it neck and neck.
WALLACE: Kara, there is so much happening just in this last week, the -- the special counsel filing by Jack Smith, the vice presidential debate, the Liz Cheney endorsement of a Democratic candidate. Talk about mind blowing. Where is this race now?
SWISHER: Also Bruce Springsteen, if you saw that. You know, I think it's difficult. Like she says, we don't know. I think it's very hard. I think, again, it's all about turnout and who -- there might be people responding to polls that aren't really going to go to -- to vote. They maybe just talk about it. And so I do think people actually don't know. I have a -- I have a feeling a lot of people aren't saying what they're going to do like that it feels like the loud mouse are talking, but maybe not everybody.
[10:20:01]
And -- and we'll see, I think it's going to be a ground game, and whoever co -- collects the most money and has the best ground game is going to win here and getting people to the polls.
WALLACE: Then there is Trump's unusual media strategy, "60 Minutes" is doing a special this Monday featuring interviews with the presidential candidates that will draw millions of viewers. Trump has turned that down. He's also getting pressure from some of his biggest supporters to do another debate. But so far, he's taking a pass there, too. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's one for one. Why let that be the last word, then?
TRUMP: No, no. Be -- because -- because number one, we're winning. Number two, it's very late in the process. They said I'm -- I'm the goat of debates.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Lulu, why is Trump a guy who loves attention, who loves crowds, why is he ducking the biggest stages?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's three reasons. The first one is that they talked about fact checking. And we've seen that Republican candidates are adverse to fact checking. They like to discredit the entire process. They say it's biased. The second reason is that he is in decline. I mean, we have seen him in the debates. We have seen him when he's faced, you know, more substantial interviews that are not with friendly people like his former, the former head of his campaign.
And those actual scenarios do not show him in a -- in a great light. And frankly, third, I think he's not wrong in that it doesn't benefit him. The more people see of Donald Trump, the less they tend to like him.
WALLACE: Reihan, is Trump afraid to be seen to appear in one way or another with Kamala Harris, whether it's on a debate stage or back to back on "60 Minutes"?
SALAM: Well, as I understand it, he has said that he would be open to a debate on "Fox." You've had a number of other major networks with big audiences that have had debates. It seems not entirely unreasonable for him to want what he takes to be a friendlier venue. That's one thing. Another is that when you think about the two months following Harris's elevation as the Democratic presidential nominee, the Trump and Vance team has had 70 media interviews with print and television reporters. Harris and Walz had seven. So I think in terms of being open to scrutiny, being open to engaging with the press.
WALLACE: What?
SWISHER: They're mostly Vance.
SALAM: There -- there are also -- there are also quite a few with Trump as well. But just to be clear, I think that it -- it, you know, it's reasonable to say that, hey, CNN has had a shot, ABC has had a shot, CBS had a shot --
WALLACE: I think it's also really possible for Kamala Harris to say, I don't think I get a fair shot on "Fox." And since Trump has phrased CNN, and I'm not -- not doing special pleading here and saying how fair it was, why on earth wouldn't he go out and do another debate?
SALAM: Well, I think that, again --
WALLACE: I mean let's not argue about the networks.
SALAM: Sure.
WALLACE: The fact is presidential candidates go on networks and do debates. Why is Trump ducking a debate with -- and -- and -- and ducking "60 Minutes" when he's going to have an interview by himself?
SALAM: Respectfully, if you think about "60 Minutes" track record of covering Donald Trump, I think he has reason to believe that that is not necessarily going to be a venue that will be entirely fair and reasonable. Just as Harris has objections to appearing on "Fox."
SWISHER: Yes. But look, this last week, there's been several appearances where his cognitive challenges are clear. And so when he had -- is pushed in any ways or when he -- when that -- when that debate happened with Kamala Harris, he has issues. We talked about it with Biden. It's so clear from so many of the speeches this week that he loses words. He mix up -- mixes up people. He doesn't want that contrast because she doesn't do that. And so he's not going to appear near her.
WALLACE: There's a new word being used in this campaign or at least new to me, sane-washing. And that's the notion that the media actually, contrary to what Reihan said, the media is cleaning up some of Trump's more outlandish remarks. For instance, here's Trump this week talking about a person in this country illegally who killed someone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: She murdered him, in my opinion, Kamala murdered him just like she did -- just like she had a gun in her hand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But he -- but here was the "AP" headline about the speech. Trump rallies in Wisconsin's critical Democratic stronghold ahead of the vice presidential debate. No mention of Trump accusing his opponent, Vice President Harris, of, in effect, murder. Kristen, is the media sane-washing some of Trumps comments?
ANDERSON: I think it is the role of the media to report on what happens. I do not think it is the role of the media to tell people how they should feel about it. And I think right now there is a lot of befuddlement on the part of people who don't like Donald Trump, that anybody could possibly want to see Donald Trump back in the White House. And so they're looking for reasons to say, well, gosh, maybe it's just that the 47 percent of America that likes Donald Trump and wants to vote for him again is just, they've become immune to the idea that he's crazy and it's the media's fault. But it is really that a lot of Americans have just decided you know what? I'm willing to take the good with the bad. And for them, they think no amount of crazy is too much.
WALLACE: So you're saying it's not the media sane-washing, it's the voters?
ANDERSON: I don't think it's the media sane-washing. I think his voters have just decided we know who Donald Trump is and we don't care. We're in for it. We're in for the ride.
[10:25:04]
WALLACE: We showed you Harris and Trump visiting with Hurricane Helene victims. Well, up next, playing politics in the storm's aftermath. Trump's claim, which could help or hurt him in two key swing states.
Plus, a goat for Christmas, how you can own a piece of Tom Brady just in time for the holidays.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:04]
WALLACE: More than a week after Hurricane Helene ravaged the southeast, the storm's aftermath is turning political. It's the deadliest hurricane since Katrina, with more than 200 people dead and hundreds more still unaccounted for. And tens of thousands across six states still don't have water or power. The damage is estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars, and this week, the secretary of homeland security warned FEMA is running out of money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: As both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump surveyed the damage this week, Trump pounced on FEMA's funding problem to make a case about immigration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants.
They stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But that's not true. FEMA uses grants to house migrants, but it has a separate budget approved by Congress for disaster relief. Kristen, is Trump politicizing Helene a smart political strategy?
ANDERSON: I think that by talking about how people are feeling and the sense that people don't think that they're getting relief fast enough, I think that's a completely legitimate criticism. I think whether it resonates will have to do with is this -- do people actually perceive that the response is ineffectual? I think about two different hurricanes that came through, caused devastation and affected elections subsequently.
You had Katrina, obviously in 2005. George W. Bush was held responsible for that terrible response and paid, he and the GOP paid --
WALLACE: And that's a terrible picture of him and Air Force One looking down 20,000 page.
ANDERSON: Absolutely paid a political price for it. But then conversely, think about 2012. You had Obama and superstorm Sandy. Chris Christie still has not been forgiven by a lot of Republicans for giving him a hug and saying, thanks for your good response. So I think it will be interesting to see how do these Republican governors, who thus far have been pretty restrained and nonpartisan and said, no, we're working well with the administration. Does that persist?
WALLACE: There is some irony in Trump's claim about FEMA taking disaster relief money to deal with migrants because it turns out in 2019, Trump's administration did just that, diverting $271 million from DHS programs, including $155 million from the disaster relief fund to pay for more detention space and hearing sites for asylum seekers.
But, Lulu, to be clear, FEMA did not divert money from the disaster relief fund for migrants this year. Your re -- your reaction to Trump's trying to link the problems with re -- with the relief to the immigrants?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean he's lying about it and he's lying about it because this is his best issue. He wants people to think that the reason that they're not satisfied with the response is because of some, you know, problem with migrants, the crisis with migrants, et cetera, et cetera. I think it's absolutely horrific to capitalize on the pain, the destruction, you know, the horrible situation that people are finding themselves in and blaming a group that actually has nothing to do with this and, in fact, are victims themselves. There are migrant communities in Florida, in North Carolina and elsewhere. So, yes, I think, I don't -- I don't think it's a -- I don't know if it's a smart political strategy, but it's a morally reprehensible one.
SWISHER: It's his instinct. It's his instinct. It's divisiveness. It's on brand. It's throwing a lie in there. This is something.
WALLACE: So -- so Reihan, will the response to Helene, do you think play a role, and especially with these two swing states that are dramatically affected, Georgia and North Carolina, will it play a role in the election? SALAM: I do think it could play a role. These regions that have been primarily impacted by the hurricane are rural regions. These are places where people are going to take a very long time to put their lives back together, and it could absolutely depress turnout, among other things.
WALLACE: So -- so you're saying it's less the question of how the government acts than just the physical fact that some of these folks may not be able to -- to vote in November because of the way their lives have been disrupted.
SALAM: It's not so much a matter of can they. I think that this is something that's going to be incredibly demoralizing. And as to the public policy failure, I'll just say that this is a big long term bipartisan failure. This is something that involves several different levels of government. Just when you look at the Hurricane Katrina response, there were failures at the state and local level as well as the federal level. And I think you see that here, too. We are building homes in flood prone areas. We are doing a lot of things that are politically easy in the moment, that are creating cascading failures down the road. We need to think hard about that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: They're here.
SWISHER: They're here. They're here.
WALLACE: Kara, I want to pick up on that because, you know, we normally think of hurricanes at landfall, you know, where it hits on the Gulf coast, where it hits in Florida on the -- on the Big Bend.
[10:35:09]
SWISHER: Yes.
WALLACE: But one of the most devastated areas was --
SWISHER: Asheville.
WALLACE: -- was Asheville and western North Carolina, which is hundreds of miles from the coast because of these huge flooding storms. Does -- does the government need to change its approach and response to these hurricanes?
SWISHER: It was thought be a climate haven, actually, people moved there because they thought they were safe. Nowhere is safe. And I think it's interesting because businesses are responding in California and Florida. Insurance companies aren't insuring, they just aren't. So they're responding to it. And I think we have to come up with more creative, including technical solutions. There's a great story about Japan and all this -- all these cathedrals under the city that collect rainwater.
We have to be thinking, as Reihan -- Reihan said, is in a bipartisan way to deal with this because we don't know where it's going to hit going forward.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But it's not --
SWISHER: Vermont -- Vermont is another good example.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But it starts with really Republicans and the Republican leadership actually accepting that climate change is real. You can't actually deal with the effects of climate change if you don't fundamentally accept that that it is rea.
ANDERSON: I don't think you have to make it about climate change. I -- I -- I have -- I have studied this a lot. And the best way that you can bring together a bipartisan group of people around these issues is not actually to make it about climate change or about the sites.
WALLACE: Even though climate change is part of the problem?
ANDERSON: The best way to do it is to talk about the practicality, the values of things like responsibility and resilience. If you talk -- as soon as you talk about climate change to a lot of Republicans that immediately signals, oh, you're -- you're not actually interested in helping me. You're interested in scoring a political point.
SALAM: It's about competence.
ANDERSON: It shuts people down. But there's a way to have this conversation. It doesn't have to be people over the headwind.
WALLACE: But -- but wait a minute. I mean, wait, I mean we're ignoring -- we're ignoring a fact. And the fact is that the warmer water creates bigger storms with more moisture, so that 500 miles away from where Helene hit, you get in Asheville, North Carolina, devastating floods, I mean climate change and global warming creating superstorms is a fact.
SALAM: That is absolutely true. I would agree with that. However, it's also the case that China is accountable for over twice the emissions as the United States. We cannot control that. What we can control is our ability to deploy infrastructure in a cost effective way. We can work on a resilience. Yes, we should address the climate issue, but this is really an issue about zoning laws. This is an issue about insurance. We can address this, and we're not.
WALLACE: Well, movie theaters are trying to do something to -- to get people to go back to them. They're hoping to bowl a strike with some big changes and we'll show you what they are doing.
Plus, your phone is finally feeling you. The emoji made for parents, especially those like Christian with newborns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:42:24]
WALLACE: Once again, it's time to get our groups, yay or nay, on some big talkers. Up first, grab the popcorn. Your movie theater is getting an upgrade. The eight biggest theater chains, including AMC and Regal, are planning to spend more than $2 billion to upgrade the movie-going experience as they try to compete with streaming platforms. Some of the improvements include immersive sound systems, more comfortable seats, and family entertainment like arcades and bowling. I'm trying to make this sound very attractive. Reihan, with all the upgrades, are you yay or nay on going out to the movies?
SALAM: I am a passionate, passionate yay. I love going to the movies. My little kids love going to the movies. I remember the first time I went to see "Gremlins" and I spilled all of my M&M's. And now I can do that in surround sound. Now I can do it with a -- a giant dinosaur spitting fire at me and bowling at the same time. I love it.
WALLACE: Note to the file, don't sit next to Reihan because --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No. I want to go with the movies with Reihan now.
WALLACE: -- they may melt in your hands, not in your mouth. Lulu, I used to go to the movies.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. I want to go to the movies with Reihan. Yes. Is that the question?
WALLACE: No.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Absolutely.
WALLACE: That's not the question. I used to go to the movies all the time. I'll bet I haven't been five times since the pandemic. And two of those were to see Tom Cruise movies. Where are you on the idea, with or without Reihan, going out to go to the movies rather than sitting at home and watching on T.V.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I feel sorry for you is what I feel.
WALLACE: Well, that's not the first time you've said that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, that you're sitting at home watching, you know, T.V. on -- on your device.
WALLACE: I have a lovely home, a wonderful wife.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm sure you do. But this is a communal experience. This is about gathering with people and being able to, you know, have the lights go down and enjoy it. No, let me sell it. I love going to the movies.
WALLACE: Next --
SWISHER: Thank you Nicole Kidman.
WALLACE: -- have you ever wondered where new emojis come from? Well, it turns out the Unicode Consortium is a nonprofit that oversees global emoji standards and approves new releases. And they recently revealed eight new ones, from a root vegetable to a harp, even the flag for an island in the English Channel. But the standout is this exhausted face emoji, which comes with bags under its eyes. Kara, as the queen of texting, are you yay or nay on new emojis? SWISHER: I don't care because there's going to be generative emojis going forward where you decide what you want to have, like Chris Wallace in a tango dress, for example, which I would like to see, and then you just make them so it doesn't matter what they think --
WALLACE: Wait, she feels sorry for me and you and -- and -- but you immediately conjure --
SWISHER: Well, whatever I want.
WALLACE: -- up as mean and dress.
SWISHER: Gen AI is going to change emojis. You're going to have whatever emoji you want.
[10:45:00]
WALLACE: Kristen, as a -- as a newborn who may have occasionally bags under the eyes I say, not today. How do you feel about these new emojis?
ANDERSON: I'm going to use that particular emoji all the time. The ones that I use the most are the eye roll, the cringe. So we'll just put that one right in there. I also have to say, though, beets is an odd choice. I'm very anti-beets, and I'm not quite sure why that is the cut.
WALLACE: You're -- you're wrong. Beets are delicious.
Finally, giving the gift of Tom Brady for Christmas in December, the seven-time Super Bowl champion is putting up for auction some of his memorabilia and high end watches. Featured items include the jersey from his final college game at the University of Michigan, estimated to go for, guess what, about $300,000, a wristband, a wristband from his epic comeback Super bowl win against the Atlanta Falcons in 2017. And the biggest ticket items from his watch collection, 27 watches it all, which could bring in as much as $6 million. Reihan, yay or nay about bidding on Brady?
SALAM: I would never spend that kind of money on new clothing, let alone on some random guy's used clothing. So no thank you.
WALLACE: Lulu, I have seen you fan girl about Olivia Rodrigo, how do you feel about buying some Brady memorabilia?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Absolutely not. And with Reihan on many things today, and this included, I would not, first of all, it's probably stinky. Second of all, I wouldn't pay that amount of money for anything just because it had touched the body of some celebrity. And finally, I mean, it's madness. Is this all going in his pocket? He's rich enough.
WALLACE: It's Tom Brady's sweat. Don't talk about odor.
The panel is back with their takes on hot stories of what will be in the news before it's news. That's right after the break.
Really? Tom Brady's sweat doesn't --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Doesn't do it for me.
WALLACE: Doesn't do it for --
SWISHER: It's "El Buchon" on the other hand.
ANDERSON: Beets.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Exactly.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:51:34]
WALLACE: It's time for our panel's special takes on what's happening or predictions of what we should be looking out for. Reihan, hit me with your best shot.
SALAM: I want to start with a bipartisan scandal. Over the last week and a half, you had former President Trump and Vice president Kamala Harris cheering on the International Longshoremen's Association. This is a union that's riddled with corruption that's been accused of links with organized crime. And they were trying to hold the nation's economy hostage.
So now the Biden White House intervened and basically leaned on management in order to make big concessions to this union temporarily until January 15th. And now that union wants to prevent us from automating ports. This is a scandal. Trump and Harris should be ashamed of themselves on this one.
WALLACE: OK. Lulu, you are focused on presidential politics south of the border.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, you kind of gave it away already because we have the first female president in North America and it ain't in Canada and it ain't here yet, but it is in Mexico. Mexico has actually beaten us all. Her name is Claudia Sheinbaum. And what she wants and what she thinks is actually going to be very influential for the next president because, of course, Mexico really has a lot of influence on our migration and on trade. And there is already a lot of consternation with this administration about her. But we'll see. She is at least a woman, and that is something.
WALLACE: Kristen, best shot.
ANDERSON: There is an article in "Politico" in January that I believe we discussed on this show going over unpredictable, predictable things that could shake up the presidential race. It included a climate related disaster that could affect swing states, violence at a Trump rally that results in someone's death, an attempt on a candidate's life. It included things like Biden having a health issue that might require him to step away from the race, global events heating up in the Middle East.
This article effectively predicted not just one, but all of those things that have occurred. The only one left from that article is that the aliens have not yet made contact. So that's my next shot. That's the only one we have left to check off the list before the presidential election.
SWISHER: Great.
ANDERSON: You heard it here first.
WALLACE: I'm not sure if the aliens see what the nature of politics is in this country, they're going to want to come down. I think they'll go to another solar system.
ANDERSON: Yes.
WALLACE: Kara, bring us on.
SWISHER: Speaking of aliens.
WALLACE: Oh, my lord. Speaking of aliens, yes.
SWISHER: These are the new Snapchat spectacles. Meta is also coming out with new ones called Orion, which is pretty cool. What they are doing is a version of Vision Pro. They're going to get smaller and smaller. You'll do things in front of you, mapping space in front of you, can finger pray, do Legos, music, and generative AI, where we can just, you and I could describe things together and imagine together. It's getting pretty cool. I'm -- I'm still pro this stuff.
ANDERSON: I -- I can't even tell you what I'm seeing right now. I think, you know.
WALLACE: Are you -- are you seeing anything?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm seeing you like an emoji in a -- in a dress -- in -- in your -- in your dress.
WALLACE: But -- but -- but here's the question. We went through this whole thing with you --
SWISHER: Yes.
WALLACE: -- about Vision Pro, the Apple.
SWISHER: Yes, yes.
WALLACE: And you had these big goggles --
SWISHER: Yes.
WALLACE: Looked a little foolish.
SWISHER: OK.
WALLACE: Are -- are they collecting dust in a closet somewhere?
SWISHER: This is the way it's going. It doesn't matter what you think. It matters with the three biggest tech companies think, and they're headed this direction, so I'm going with them on it.
WALLACE: When's the last time you actually used your Vision Pro?
SWISHER: I told you this the other day. I watched a movie on it. It was great. And I love these. They're interesting. We'll see what happens. We'll see.
WALLACE: And it's OK to go around looking like, forgive me --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Like what? Like what?
WALLACE: Like Lulu looks right now? Anyway --
[10:55:00]
SWISHER: She looks fantastic.
WALLACE: I have my own best shot, and it's about my latest book, which comes out this week, hot off the press, here it is, "Countdown 1960." It's a real book. The behind the scenes story of the 312 days that changed America's politics forever. It's the inside account of the fascinating race between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, including the first televised presidential debate.
But it's also relevant to current politics because the 1960 election may have really been stolen and a candidate had to decide whether to contest it or go along with a peaceful transfer of power. Note to the file, he decided the transition was more important. "Countdown 1960" is out on Tuesday and is available for preorder right now.
Gang, thank you all for being here.
SWISHER: Thank you.
WALLACE: And thank you for spending part of your day with us. And we'll see you right back here next week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
