Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Questions Surround Biden's Aging And Leadership; Dark Era In American Political Violence. How "Sober-ish" Is Both Physical And Cultural. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 21, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

OMAR DIAZ, CO-FOUNDER, HOODS TO WOODS FOUNDATION: That these people have now taken a different path, met new friends, have done different life choices because of the opportunities that they were given.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: They started with four students in their neighborhood in Brooklyn, and now hundreds have been through their program. To check them out, visit hoodstowoodsfoundation.org.

Brian Paupaw, Omar Diaz and all the kids at Hoods to Woods Foundation, I see you. And thank you for joining me today. Tune in for a special New Year edition of the show next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish starts right now.

[09:00:39]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Dancing on the ceiling. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Last night, after three days of political maneuvering, Congress averted a government shutdown. This drama centered around a Republican push to eliminate the debt ceiling, something both President-elect Trump and first friend Elon Musk had advocated. On the surface, it seems counterintuitive. After all, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tasked in the new administration with slashing government spending through a new entity, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short.

The debt ceiling is a tool to curb federal borrowing. It's been around since World War I. It's supposed to serve as a fiscal check, but more often than not, it's been the source of political stalemates and near crises. Trump has made it clear that he wants the debt ceiling gone, but he prefers that it happen on President Biden's watch, not his own. Why? Because even though Republicans will soon control the White House and both houses of Congress, their 53:47 edge in the Senate won't guarantee a free pass.

Many spending bills still require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democrats will need to cross the aisle. And in the House, the GOP majority is sometimes like herding cats. Just a few defectors can upend Trump's ambitions. In short, Trump wants room to deal, especially where he has ambitious plans. He's promised both tax cuts and mass deportations.

Each initiative is costly, and both would be easier to implement without the constraints of a debt ceiling. It's worth noting that during his first term, the national debt increased by $8 trillion. Yes, COVID contributed, but the stigma of big spender isn't one that Trump wants to carry, especially when the national debt now stands at a staggering $37 trillion.

For context, the government spent $1.8 trillion more than it took in during the fiscal year that ended September 30th. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans used to be the party most concerned about the national debt, but there hasn't been serious discussion about federal spending since Simpson-Bowles was defeated on President Obama's watch. And ending the debt ceiling has often been an idea put forth by Democrats. Just this week, Senator Elizabeth Warren said she agreed with Trump's desire to do so. Trump's victory was driven by two key issues in the election, the economy and immigration. His supporters expect action and both tax cuts and mass deportations are front and center.

Which brings us to today's poll question@smerkanish.com should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass deportation? Vote now. We'll share results with you at the end of the hour.

One person AWOL from this week's debate, President Joe Biden, who appears to be making a quiet exit. Where was he? Even his own party called out his absence. Politico reporting, quote, "More than a half dozen House Democratic lawmakers said on Thursday that the conference had yet to hear from the president even as Congress scrambled to salvage a funding deal and avoid shutting down the government."

Well, perhaps that's part of something that's been culminating for a while. Two of the nation's most prominent publications each spent over 2000 words of real estate raising questions about how the White House has adapted to his age and declining energy levels while in office. The "New York Times" describes this moment as a weary Biden heads for the exit, focusing on his efforts to secure a legacy while confronting the limitations of time.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal offers a deep dive in how the White House functioned with a diminished Biden in charge, detailing how meetings were tightly controlled, access limited, and staff took on heightened roles as go betweens.

Joining us now on the phone is Annie Linskey, the lead author of that Wall Street Journal piece, who also wrote about the impact of Biden's age and how his inner circle kept it under wraps back in June and had taken a lot of heat for what she wrote then.

Annie, from you, I have learned in this recent investigative piece that concerns existed, really from the get go of the Biden term. Explain. ANNIE LINSKEY, REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes, that's right. And good morning. It's good to be here.

One of the key findings in our piece was that in the very early months of the Biden administration, aides told people seeking meetings, that the meetings had to be short and they had to be focused. And they said this to people, you know, top officials seeking meetings with the president. They said, the reason is he gets tired, he makes mistakes, so we need to keep this short and we need to keep him focused.

[09:05:18]

SMERCONISH: From your piece, I'm going to put on the screen and I'm going to read aloud, "Presidents always have gatekeepers, but in Biden's case, the walls around him were higher and the controls greater, according to Democratic lawmakers, donors and aides who worked for Biden and other administrations. There were limits over who Biden spoke with, limits on what they said to him, and limits around the sources of information he consumed." Expand on that.

LINSKEY: Yes, the way that the Biden White House functioned is there was a hard shell around the president and that shell just got thicker and harder over time. He was not speaking regularly with some key cabinet members, including his Secretary of Treasury, his Secretary of Defense, we found. And he was not always getting the information, he was not always getting -- you know, his news clippings did not always include some of the negative stories. There was a big effort to make sure there were lots of positive stories about a particular event. So there was a limit to the information he was getting.

And instead of meeting with some of these people, he was getting briefed by his staff. And the problem with that is you have a filter. Even the most well-meaning, well briefed staff member is still a filter. And we just found that wall meant that the president wasn't necessarily getting a complete view of information that was happening in the world, but also top Democrats and the Democratic elites in this town and in this country, were not getting a full sense of Biden himself and his decline.

SMERCONISH: Respond, please, to the criticism, and I'm sure you've seen it in the comments. There are thousands of comments that are appended to your reporting in the Wall Street Journal. And many say, why are we only being told this now? Was there a cover up? Why did the media not tell us sooner?

LINSKEY: Yes, I have read that. I've gotten some e-mails to that effect as well.

Look, at the Wall Street Journal, we pushed hard on this topic. We were the only outlet that really got behind the scenes in doing reporting about what was happening in the White House. And some of our competitors did really good stories. I mean, Axios was really on top of this. "The New York Times" is on top of this.

But we had the most complete reporting before the debate. And it was a real -- you know, the White House pushed back very hard every step of the way. And I know that my competitors felt that pushback when they were doing similar stories. And, you know, it was an enormous amount of pressure coming from the most powerful institution in the world. But that is what we do.

That's what we do at the Wall Street Journal. We are there to follow and find the truth. And so, I'm very proud of the reporting that we've done, and we continue at it.

SMERCONISH: And, Annie, I noted in the introduction that before the debate in June, before the debate, you wrote on this subject. And I remember at the time there was a lot of blowback directed toward the Wall Street Journal for having written that piece. I was left wanting more information in your most recent story about Jill Biden, the first lady, and Kamala Harris, the vice president. There wasn't anything about either what they saw, what they did, how they may have acted to protect this issue, potential incapacities of the president, I think is how I would loosely describe it. What can you tell me about Jill Biden and Kamala Harris?

LINSKEY: I think those are good questions, and I think there's more reporting that needs to be done in both areas. But I also want to point out that you were among one of the few journalists in this business who took the initial reporting very seriously. And I deeply appreciate that. And I just wanted to make sure that, you know how much that was appreciated in those initial days when our reporting was met with more skepticism than kind of an open mind.

SMERCONISH: Well, I'll tell you what I remember. I remember the whole Robert Hur interview. I remember the transcript being released, and it was evident that the president was struggling for his responses, which then caused Hur to assess the president, I'm doing this from memory as a sympathetic older guy who's forgetful. But what I learned from the Journal this week is that that's exactly how the president was in his prep sessions. What am I making reference to?

[09:10:04]

LINSKEY: Yes, yes, that's right. Our reporting showed that the president spent, you know, several hours a day and about a week ahead of her interview. So this is in October 2023, prepping for that interview. And during his prep sessions, his energy levels really fluctuated from, you know, moments where he was really on top of it to moments where he was much less energetic. And there were times when he really struggled to remember the lines that his team was suggesting as they prepped for how to answer the special counsel -- the answer to the special counsel in what was going to be a five hour interview ultimately with the special counsel.

And I was really struck when I learned that, too. To me, it showed that there were very clearly signs that he was struggling. And people on the inside saw it, too.

SMERCONISH: Annie Linskey from the Wall Street Journal, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate your reporting.

LINSKEY: Thank you. I appreciate you, too. SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll share some throughout the course of the program. You can find me on all the usual social media outlets.

Which is true, the staff and hangers-on did not recognize what the rest of us saw, or did they all decide to just lie to us from the start? Political malfeasance.

Right, Rhonda. I mean, anybody with a television set who's been watching for the last four years, I think is reading this in the Journal and saying, yes, of course.

Catherine (ph), can you put the full screen from the "New York Times" that I never got to use with Annie? Can you put that up on the screen?

It's not just the Wall Street Journal like this week. As I said, it was also the "New York Times" and the Journal. Listen to this. This is from the "Times," "Time is catching up with Mr. Biden. He looks a little older and a little slower with each passing day.

Aides say he remains plenty sharp in the Situation Room, calling world leaders to broker a ceasefire in Lebanon or deal with the chaos of Syria's rebellion."

Pay attention to the next sentence. This was on the front page of the "New York Times." "But it's hard to imagine that he seriously thought he could do the world's most stressful job for another four years."

I don't bring it up to be malicious. You know, I think he's a good man. But there's something unsettling about the fact that now at the tail end, this is all being reported and discussed, and it's legitimate and I wish him good health and a long life, but it warrants conversation.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass deportation?

Up ahead, my next guest has been studying political violence for three decades. Why he says the assassination of the health insurance CEO is not a one off. Plus, have you noticed holiday parties aren't as wild as they used to be? Could it be due to a new trend in the way that we consume alcohol? Make sure you're signing up for my free and worthy daily newsletter at smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:35]

SMERCONISH: Why are we glorifying political violence in America? Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old suspect accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, expected to be arraigned Monday on New York State charges which include first degree murder as an act of terrorism. He also faces four federal counts in connection to Thompson's death.

Mangione arrived in New York Thursday by helicopter, swarmed by a team of heavily armed officers, with Mayor Eric Adams walking a few paces behind. Our CNN chief, law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller says the tight security is likely due to Mangione's support from the public and concerns about anyone trying to free him from law enforcement. His supporters were seen holding Free Luigi signs and wearing green hats like the Luigi character from the Mario Brothers video games.

The acts of political violence are not only becoming more frequent, but appear to be glorified. Once his identity was revealed, Mangione's followers on X, they surged from 67 to nearly half a million a day later.

Joining me now is Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago. He specializes in security affairs and has been studying political violence for 30 years. A "New York Times" interview with him just published under the headline, What the Glorification of Luigi Mangione Reveals about America.

Professor, thank you for being here. Talk to me big picture, what trends are you seeing on this subject?

ROBERT PAPE, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFFESOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Michael as you know, I study political violence, the perpetrators, beliefs of Americans about political violence. Tragically, political violence is becoming normal in America. We only have to look back over the last few years to see in 2022, we had an assassination attempt against Nancy Pelosi. 2023, an armed assailant tries to break into Barack Obama's home in Washington, D.C. Just recently, two assassination attempts against Donald Trump, a whole spate of violent threats against members of Congress.

This is affecting not just Republicans, not just Democrats, this is occurring across the board. And now this normalization is now crossing a new threshold. We are now on the slippery slope of political violence crossing threshold after threshold. And the newest threshold is corporate America.

[09:20:03]

SMERCONISH: Before you, I didn't see this as part of a larger narrative. You're making it sound like it's 1968 all over again.What accounts for it?

PAPE: We are going through a dramatic social change in our country. We are going through a transition from a white majority democracy to a white minority, truly balanced multiracial democracy. And the tipping point for this started about 10 years ago. And we have about another 10 years before we pass through this tipping point. Well, that accounts for the meteoric rise of Donald Trump and his issue, immigration.

That accounts for the reaction, the violent and aggressive reaction against Donald Trump. And unfortunately, it accounts for many of the acts and growing acts of political violence where increasingly people believe they should take violent action to solve social ills. SMERCONISH: Am I right, Professor, that it's coming from both ends of the political spectrum and that the perpetrators don't fit one demographic?

PAPE: The perpetrators don't fit the normal pattern of being unemployed, of being members of militia groups. They fit the pattern of normal America. This alleged killer is the personification of normalization. He is coming from a privileged background. He's coming from a highly educated background.

This is increasingly occurring across the perpetrators. And so what we are seeing is a spectrum of perpetrators, and that's reflecting the normal spectrum of the distribution of people in our country. And unfortunately, we are now on the slippery slope where we have to understand that this is occurring not just against targets or corporations we might be angry with today, there's no doubt that there's anger. The danger here is that this will keep spreading and it will normalize violence even more, and it will occur against targets that we actually favor and endorse.

SMERCONISH: A quick final question. Does the explanation that you've just given to me as to why we're seeing this as part of a larger trend of political violence also explain despicable, from my perspective, the public outpouring in some quarters of support for the presumed gunman in New York City. In other words, it's not just the perpetrators. It says something your explanation about a segment of society as well.

PAPE: That's right. We conduct surveys at the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, my center, and we've been doing this every quarter for years now. And what we see is that between 10, 15, sometimes 20 percent of Americans support the use of force for political goals they also endorse. And that's exactly, Michael, what we are seeing here on social media. And now it is certainly true that we need to study more about the exact, precise nature of this support related to corporate America.

But as we do those future studies know that we already recognize the clear warning signs that this is -- we are on the slippery slope. We're crossing new thresholds. And there's no reason to think that this will stop here, stop with this one corporation. The problem we have is we, again, we have seen political violence against our political leaders across the political spectrum. We've seen political violence against Jewish students on university campuses.

Now we're seeing political violence in corporate America. And unfortunately, these are just threshold after threshold that we have been breaking. And we need to recognize as a country, we need a national conversation like we're having here that this is not the direction we want to go as a country.

SMERCONISH: Sadly, it makes sense the way that you've explained it. Thank you, Professor. I appreciate your expertise.

PAPE: Thank you. Thank you. SMERCONISH: Let's see what you're saying via social media. From the world of X, people are not glorifying an alleged murderer, though it seems that way. Yes, they are. This event was the spark that lit a very hot flame of anger at health care insurance companies who demonstrate their desire to make money over helping to save lives. This. That's what has people so furious.

[09:25:01]

I told you last weekend, right? Change is not going to come through the barrel of a gun. Hopefully we can agree on that. But having heard from my guest, Professor Pape at the university of Chicago, don't you now see this? It's not a one off.

It's not just about health care. I get the very legitimate concerns that exist about the healthcare insurance industry. I understand that. A lot of room for improvement. But it's part of a much larger narrative.

He puts it in the context of that horrific break in at Speaker Pelosi's house and the attempt at Obama. Did you even know of that? Or the two assassination attempts relative to President-elect Donald Trump. There's something bigger taking place out there and it needs to be appreciated in a larger context.

Still to come, your social media reaction to today's program so far. Make sure you're hitting me up on all social media platforms. I love reacting in real time.

And when's the last time that you went to a party and saw, well, anything like this? Maybe college, right? Have you noticed everybody's consuming less with dry January right around the corner for some. We'll discuss the latest trends around alcohol consumption or the lack thereof.

Make sure that you're going to the website. It's smerconish.com and answering today's poll question, which is this, should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass deportation? When you're there, sign up for the free daily newsletter. Steve Breen drew a great cartoon for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:06]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Reach out for me, react to today's program.

Leave Biden alone. He's in his way out.

I think you mean, he's on his way out. I am leaving him alone. But I'm not going to bypass or avoid stories on the front pages of two of the most important newspapers in the country this week that broke new ground and told us what's been going on for the last four years, where, frankly, we haven't been told those things. Maybe we assume those things, but we haven't been told those things or had those thoughts confirmed.

It's a legitimate issue. It brings me no pleasure to talk about some of the frailties that he has exhibited while in office that may have limited his ability to do his job, but I'm to ignore that? No, I'm not going to ignore that. What's next? This.

The press, as well as the general public should be outraged over how much the president was shielded from the public. Why didn't the press demand access?

I think that's a fair question, Brian. And I asked it of my guest, Annie Linskey, from the "Wall Street Journal," who has been willing to write these stories in the face of a great deal of criticism. And you heard her confirm, I think, it's definitely in the piece, just how vociferous the White House would push back against this.

I think the fault lies primarily with the people in the inner circle who saw some of these things and didn't speak up. Why didn't they speak up? Probably because of self-preservation. You know, they wanted to maintain their own position of stature.

And I'm sure there is more to be written and reported on this subject. At least, I hope so. What's next? All of a sudden, I'm like the Grinch who stole Christmas because I'm willing to talk about President Biden's limitations while in office. Go figure.

Biden is an old guy and he has slowed down. But he has -- has he ever talked electric boats and sharks? Has he ever stood on stage for 30 minutes dancing to music? You are a tool.

Alan Cosgrove, if I sit here and have the same conversation about President Trump in three years, will I be a tool then? Say what you will about Trump. But on the vibrancy scale as compared to Biden, there's just not a comparison. And surely you know that.

Next, what do we have? My favorite part of the show. You know, I see none of these things in advance, right?

The debt ceiling is incredibly stupid, artificial construct. The money has already been appropriated. It only prevents the government from paying their bills. It should be eliminated immediately, says Daniel.

I think that's a worthy conversation to have, Daniel. The problem now is that removal of the -- we'll see in the poll result today, of today's poll question, but now removal of the debt ceiling is going to be seen as something partisan like, oh, that's what Trump wants. And if Trump wants it then, I guess, I have to be against it.

Or if Trump wants it, I guess, I have to be for it instead of having a valid debate, which is what you're initiating on this issue. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump both want to get rid of it. The problem, in my perspective, is not, you know, paying our debt. It's all that initial spending where we incur all that debt.

Another one. I love it. Give me another. I can do this until Christmas day. Does not seem to matter whether or not the debt ceiling is eliminated given how many times Congress has increased it -- I agree.

Can I tell you? It's like a total -- it's a total joke. The people here at CNN, and certainly those who work with me at SiriusXM on radio, they know that I hate the issue of the government shutdown because, in my view, the whole thing is a scam. They're just using it for grandstanding and to make their own political points. And with rare exception, I know there have been one or two in the recent past, but with the rare exception, they always work it out.

And in the --in the process, I fear that they scare the crap out of primarily federal employees who are not going to get a paycheck. Maybe eventually they'll get it. And it's just unfounded for political gain.

All right. Do I really have to wrap up? I can't go until Christmas just doing social media? No, I can't. All right.

[09:35:01]

Why this next scene might be a thing of the past at your holiday Christmas party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE CARELL, ACTOR: This is equal parts scotch, absinthe, rum, gin, vermouth, triple sec, and two packs of Splenda. I call it a one of everything.

KATE FLANNERY, ACTRESS: Oh, my God.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The new sober-ish movement giving situations like this the thumbs down. That's because so many have decided to cut back on their drinking. What's behind this non-alcoholic trend? The author of "Going Dry" is next.

And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish -- that looks appetizing, doesn't it? Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass deportation? When you're there, sign up for the newsletter. Jack Ohman draws for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:41]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BELUSHI, ACTOR: Thanks, I needed that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: It never gets old, Belushi, "Animal House," 0.0. Drinking, it was the culture for many. But now, a growing trend is changing the way that we drink, live, and socialize without going all in or all out.

Almost half of Americans, 45 percent, now say that having one or two drinks a day is bad for your health, according to Gallup. It might not be surprising, but it's actually the highest percentage recorded since the survey started in 2001.

This shift in attitudes reflects the rise of non-alcoholic options at restaurants, hotels, and bars. Between 2020 and 2022, non-alcoholic spirits grew by 500 percent globally. The non-alcoholic beer market hit $22 billion in 2022. It's projected to grow 5.5 percent annually through 2032.

These numbers tie into dry January, a popular new year's challenge to avoid alcohol for a month. And that's where the sober-ish trend comes in. It's a movement gaining popularity as people reassess their relationship with alcohol, choosing to cut back without fully giving it up.

Author and journalist Hilary Sheinbaum knows all about it. Her success with dry January inspired her book "The Dry Challenge." Hilary embraces a mindful approach to socializing, swapping hangovers for non-alcoholic cocktails. Her latest book is called "Going Dry: A Workbook: A Practical Guide to Drinking Less and Living More."

Hilary Sheinbaum joins me now. So, what lies behind the trend, and is it just a fad, or do you think it's here to stay?

HILARY SHEINBAUM, AUTHOR, "GOING DRY: A WORKBOOK": Yes, I think it's here to stay. It's definitely not a fad. People are more in tune with their wellness than ever before, and it's really hard to escape that alcohol has detriments, not just hangovers.

SMERCONISH: Hilary, is it because the product has gotten so much better? The non-alcoholic product for me, the Heineken zeros and the Athletic beers, I think, are terrific. And something that I did after dry January last year was -- and frankly, then it lasted for a couple of months and I need to go back to it.

But I would mix. In other words, I'd have a beer and then I'd have a Heineken zero. I'd have a beer, then have an Athletic. You know what I mean?

SHEINBAUM: Absolutely. The products have gotten so much better even in the last couple of years. There are non-alcoholic wines, beers, spirits.

And just to your point, you don't have to go 100 percent dry the rest of the year. You can alternate between alcoholic wines and non- alcoholic wines. This is Giesin. It is alcohol removed. And they even have a full line of alcoholic wines.

So, you can really switch off and hydrate in between. And the spirits now are better than ever. This is Fluere. It's a non-alcoholic gin. So, you can mix your favorite cocktails without getting a buzz.

SMERCONISH: Hey, some of these non-alcoholic products are not cheap, right? Less people think that they're going to save a fortune from their alcohol budget.

SHEINBAUM: No, they can be a bit expensive because they taste great. And the point isn't, you know, that you're missing something. It's really about the flavor, the experience. It's -- you're still socializing with friends and enjoying a really nice cocktail or glass of wine with your dinner. So, the product is quality.

SMERCONISH: I want to show you -- I'll put on the screen something that Katie Roiphe wrote for the "Wall Street Journal," and then I'll ask a question about it.

She said, "Have you noticed that your friends are a little less fun? That everyone leaves a dinner party earlier? That their stories are less wild or funny or revealing? This may be because so many people have decided to cut down on their drinking after a spate of ominous articles on how alcohol, even in moderate amounts, increases your risk for cancer and other serious health problems."

When I read that, I wondered, what are we sacrificing in terms of mingling if we all go sober-ish or completely non-alcoholic?

SHEINBAUM: No, I think I'm so much more fun without a drink, to be honest. I mean, I bring my non-alcoholic beverages and I mix and I muddle and I create, you know, and I'm more interactive. And I think it just takes a little bit more time and a little bit more thought to think of those, you know, experiences to do with your friends and your family and your loved ones instead of going to a bar. And it's as simple as that.

But you're going to wake up in the morning refreshed, not hungover, and you're going to be able to, you know, continue your day with a happier mood. And so, there's nothing better than that.

[09:45:02]

SMERCONISH: OK. I did dry January successfully last January. By the way, did it -- did it not only for drinking but did it for smoking because I'm a cigar a day guy. I think I'm going to do it again.

Should I go cold turkey in one shot? Or right now even before Christmas and the holidays, should I start to taper down? Advise myself and everybody else who's contemplating a dry January, how do you do it?

SHEINBAUM: You can do it either way. I would suggest starting early. You know, getting to the grocery store, picking up your non-alcoholic beverages just to prepare a little. You know, start planning if that's what you like to do. I'm a planner.

But you can go cold turkey if you'd like. I will just say that if you are looking for a recovery program or you are struggling within the first few days of your non-alcoholic adventure, I would definitely seek medical expertise. Or there are, you know, wonderful apps now like Reframe, which have helped almost a million people really curb their drinking habits. SMERCONISH: It's hard for some to taper off toward the end of the year because of New Year's eve, right? You're going to watch Anderson Cooper and the show on CNN that night. So, how do you then all of a sudden go from having all that fun and frivolity and then bang the next day it's like, you're done?

SHEINBAUM: Yes, it can be really rough. I definitely advise, you know, to have those non-alcoholic options available even on New Year's day. I mean, Mionetto, this is one of my favorites. It's an aperitivo, but they also make a non-alcoholic sparkling wine, and it's so good for celebration. So, you can start right at midnight so you won't be as hungover the next day. And you can start those New Year's resolutions early.

SMERCONISH: OK. Hilary. Happy holidays to you. Thank you for being here.

SHEINBAUM: Thanks for having me. And you too.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on your social media comments. What do we have? From the world of X, there is this.

It's called sober October. You're late to the -- come on. You're asking me no -- you're asking me now to be October -- sober in October, and then in January, too? One month is enough for me. I'm going to struggle to get through January.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com -- tell me again. I don't know what you just said. All right. No, if you have one more social, go ahead, hit me with another one social. Let's do it.

Come on. We're live. Let's do it live. Do it live. Put it up there. Yes. Stop the press.

President Musk is already causing chaos and is set to run the country into the ground. And you want to talk about drinking? I guess it makes sense then.

Oh, that was good. Yes, that was worth interrupting me for. Thank you, John (ph) Lewinsky (ph). OK, back to the poll question that Smerconish.com. Inspired by the events last night and the last three days, should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass -- look, you voted for those things, right? Or half of you did.

You want tax cuts and mass deportation. Well, are you prepared to give President Trump the tools that he needs to deliver them?

When you're there, subscribe to the newsletter. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons like this a beauty, sad, but really well done from Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:49] SMERCONISH: I don't want to run out of time at the end so let me say this now a very merry Christmas, happy holidays. Thank you so much for watching the program during the course of 2024. See you live in 2025.

Next Saturday, I'm thrilled that it's going to be another of my book club specials. I've told you the story before. Years ago, CNN said, we like you. We don't know what to do with you. What do you want to do? And I said, I'd like to host a book club. Like what?

So, for the last two years now, when they asked me for a special, I say, I have just the thing. It will be my book club. So, watch book club next Saturday in this time period. It's terrific.

OK, time to see how you responded to the poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the debt ceiling be eliminated if necessary to facilitate tax cuts and mass deportation? Right. I mean, I get it. You know, Trump wanted it, so you're against it, 86 percent of more than 31,000 say no.

What if I hadn't phrased it that way? What if I had simply said, should we get rid of the debt ceiling? Then you'd have thought of Elizabeth Warren and you'd be like, yes, we should do that because Elizabeth -- but if it's Trump, like, no, we can't do it.

More social media reaction. What do we have?

I'm glad real conservatives stood up to Trump on the debt ceiling. Giving that man a blank check to do anything is a terrible idea. Just look what he's done to his own companies over the years, says David.

David, Americans, at least half of them, slightly more than half, voted for things like mass deportation and an economic plan that he has, which includes tax cuts. So, how is he going to be able to do that unless he raises the debt ceiling? That's really, I think, the motivation that he has.

It's totally at odds. Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk say, you know, doge this Department of Government Efficiency, I'm all for getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse. How much there is that they can actually rid the government of remains to be seen. But of all people, for them then to say, let's get rid of the debt ceiling, it seemed counterintuitive until you realize he's going to -- he's going to need Trump to pay for some of those priorities that he has. That's why he wanted to get rid of it, on Biden's watch, not on his own.

[09:55:02]

More social media reaction. How about an hour of social media reaction one week? Just come in here and wing it.

Michael, let this be a lesson, especially given Donald J. Trump will be the same age at the start of his second term, as Biden was at the start of his term. If the Constitution framers would place a minimum age for someone to become POTUS, why can't it be amended to install a maximum age? OK. I'll play along. How about for the Supreme Court of the United States as well? The answer to your question more seriously is because we don't all age the same. Like 82 doesn't look the same on each one of us.

I think it's pretty clear that the reporting was lax on what was going on, you know, behind the walls of the White House. And people who were around him who saw things didn't want to say it. It brings me no joy to report on that. And if the same repeats itself with Trump, we ought to report on that, too. Merry Christmas. See you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)