10:32
Let me invite The Australian columnist Tom Switzer, who is with me in the studio now, to join the conversation. There's a lot to talk about here, but let's start with this. This is a disturbing candidate, this guy who will now become a senator. He was openly anti-Semitic in some of his statements. He is closely associated with people who could easily be called Islamist extremists. And the candidate he defeated in the Democratic primary endorsed the Republican on Monday. This is an extraordinary victory for the Democrats. They held this place. This was the Democrats' seat in the Senate although there was no sitting senator.
This is true. Look, I think this shows that hostility toward Israel doesn't really hurt you nationally or when elected to the Senate. This is quite impressive. And if you look at all the polling data available, especially among young Democrats, and even among young Republicans, there is criticism of America's strong support for Israel. And El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate in Michigan who will soon become a senator, he exploited these anxieties. He definitely used it. Now, you are the best person to give us historical context. We know that midterm elections usually bring backlash against the president's party, but this was massive, it painted the House blue and, importantly, gave
Democrats clear control of the Senate. How does this compare to regular American politics? Yeah, well, look, I think this is a stinging rebuke to Trump and the ruling Republicans. Without a doubt. But that still pales in comparison to the electoral defeat the Democrats suffered in 1994 under Bill Clinton. It was Newt Gingrich's revolutionary wave that saw Republicans win the House and Senate for the first time in a generation. This is still inferior to Obama's defeat in 2010. This was his first midterm election since he won that historic election in 2008, when Republicans, the "Tea Party, " you remember, won the House of Representatives and regained the Senate majority from the Democrats. But it's still a big, big loss for Trump. And I
think he realized the significance of this moment. He has already given an interview to the Wall Street Journal, partly blaming his defeat on the Iran war. And he also spoke to the New York Times to say that he accepts the election results. And during Fox News too. In fact, we should he said they would send some nonsense that he would have to veto, but in the end, he said, they would have to work together. also shows the absurdity of the argument we've heard in a lot of the media, particularly in Australia, that he's a dictator, that he won't accept the results. It is clear that he has accepted the results, and this is an encouraging sign.
Well, and this overreaction, like dancing on his grave, the end of the MAGA movement and all that. Well, it's the MAGA movement, in my opinion, that probably objected more than others to the Iran trip and its consequences. And the fact is that no matter what happens in the world after Trump for Republicans, he remains the leader of the free world for the next 2 years. This is a rebuke to Trump and his inability to solve the cost of living problems. Exactly. His tariffs, the war in Iran-this has increased the pressure on the cost of living.
Maybe this is a lesson for Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. Yes, I think the signs here for Albanese and Chalmers are quite bad. This shows what happens during a cost of living crisis and when governments make it worse. There is a big difference here. The Federal Reserve in the United States has raised interest rates only once this year. The Reserve Bank of Australia has raised them five times here. But the point is that the cost of living has hit the Republicans, just as it may hit the Labor Party in 2 years. Well, actually, yes. And by the Labor Party, because you can make a direct connection between government actions and the cost of living, as was the case
with the Iran war in the US, and as is the case with electricity prices, government spending and so on here. Let's move on, however, to the Middle East. I want to talk about what will happen there. Trump talked about withdrawing aid preemptively, in fact, before the midterm elections, even before voting began. He said he was going to stop aid to Israel. Here is the president. They don't need it. They became quite wealthy. And I spoke with Bibi Netanyahu about this. I've been talking to him about this for the past four months. I said, "You know, Bibi, you guys can afford to do your own thing now, you don't
need this." And we actually already, you know, a few weeks ago, reached an agreement. He, by the way, does not object. Yes, that's interesting. I've heard others talk about it. This is a significant amount of money, but not that important for Israel. They can finance their own defense. Listen, I'm following this issue very closely. I mean, every president, starting at least with Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Six-Day War in the mid-60s, has given, you know, strong support to Israel. I've never heard an American president speak that language, not even President Obama or President Carter. Why does he say that? Maybe he feels like talking about decreasing support for Israel. He's talking about military aid, right?
This is still significant. significantly, certainly, but Yes. No, I think what's happening here is that young Americans aren't following mainstream news. Many of them, both young Republicans and young Democrats, get their news from TikTok and other social media, they see evidence of IDF crimes in Gaza, and they blame the Americans. And that's why it didn't hurt this guy in Michigan. I mean, he campaigned hard on this. Well, we see it here in Australia. They are fed so much information, lies against the IDF, that are never refuted. We hear this all the time on ABC.
Yes. The critical question is what happens to Iran, and the president mentioned it just a few hours ago. I think Iran was part of it, but at the same time, people understood the importance of what I did with Iran. I think historically it will be much more important than this evening. Because you can't let the leading state sponsor of terrorism have nuclear weapons, you know? This is the most dangerous country in the world, and we have practically destroyed them. The work is not finished, and maybe I will do it, and maybe not So it's just "maybe it will work, maybe it won't." He won't do it. He understands the domestic political price he paid for this, but still defends his
decision. He has to finish it one way or another. What do you think he will do? Well, the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post published front-page articles last week that he would resume a military campaign with the Israelis against Iran. I'm not sure when I hear that. I think he realizes that ultimately this has to be a political decision with the mullahs in the regime. And this could mean revising the memorandum of understanding from June of this year. Well, he's hinting that they're ready to make a deal, but he's been hinting at this for many, many months. Yes. One of the problems that Americans have, Chris, and we talked about this on the program, is the critical shortage of ammunition in the
United States. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. This is a real problem for the United States. Whereas the Iranians appear to have countless ballistic missiles and drones that they use to intimidate America's Sunni allies in the Persian Gulf. This should worry Trump. Tom Switzer, thank you very much for joining us for the newscast.
