true, because you now have a kind of music in america that is really more spectacle, it was more to liberace than it does to elvis presley. and it is somewhat meaningless and loud and bloviating, and then we have this sort of spectacle in washington, this kind of politics, which has gotten so out of control. and so, the theory seems to hold up. again, it was only my theory, and that is how i wrote the song. that was the principle behind it. tucker: so he set out to write, as you said, a big song about america. and boy, did you succeed. 50 years later, you know, it s one of the most famous songs ever written in english, and one of the most resilient and resonant. we are still listening to it every day. what kind of reaction do you get from people to the song now? well, the song has been part
more seriously injured. the u.s. stands by new zealand for anything we can do. god bless all. let s bring in dana bash and john avlon, senior political analyst. you have been looking through the so-called manifesto that authorities believe at the moment, though these are early hours, are connected to this gunman and he talks about invaders. the language is language we have heard before very close to home. some of the same language the president used in his campaign ad before the midterms. it s just rife with that stuff of someone who just is a white supremacist. we need to be careful about what s in here. but the language is all resonant of white nationalist, white identity politics, extremism that goes back to the christian militia movement in the 1990s. there is a flow-through of this. you can see it. some of the rhetoric at
i would ask this. do you have children? do you have grandchildren? are you willing to gamble? i know you do. but are you willing to gamble on their futures? because they re going to be paying the bill for our fault and not dealing with this or they re going to be living lives that are nowhere near the quality of life and i very much respect that response and it is one that we can t dismiss because it is powerful and resonant and the something that should drive policy. but it is nevertheless a response that could produce hysteria. and hysteria has never done anything to solve this problem. alternatively, it could produce government policy that tries to address this issue. you re right that there are individual numbers that have been disputed and that should deserve scrutiny. but the overwhelming trajectories of the scientific evidence all points to the same thing, which is that the globe is warming and that it is majority manmade and that we have to do something urgently within th
democrat and as a latino. and what i am also not shy about is calling out dog whistle politics. this is dog whistle politics at its worst. days after we had a tragic shooting in pennsylvania, less than a week after you have an arrest of someone in that scooby-doo van. with the anticnn. and the other things. when you create a climate as this president has created that invites violent acts, you should never be surprised when you have violent acts. and the american people are tired of it. that s why they know that we need guardrails in washington. we need guardrails in our governor s residence. that s why i m confident we re going to do really well in electing democrats here in washington and across the nation. i ve been scanning the races. i see what s going on in health care. i see why you re banking that s resonant.
going to do really well in electing democrats here in washington and across the nation. i ve been scanning the nation. i see what s going on in health care. i see why you re banking that s resonant. we talked about it here, that s new for the democrats, it s more robust than you had in the past. we ll see if that works in terms of what kind of turnout you want. but on this issue of immigration, you guys have not owned it the way he does. he says you guys are open borders because you re in favor of policies like family reunification and what they call chain migration in here. and you don t hear democrats going toe to toe with trump about this. you talk about other things, and i m wondering, what s the calculus there? because to me it seems like a risk. i disagree with you, chris. here s the deal. donald trump the republicans own the white house. they have the senate. they have the house. they own any failure in these policies right now shouldn t you have your own plan? we have