Judy: Days after the massacre in
Buffalo, the response from
political leaders has turned not
to the usual conversation on
guns but to the power of the
racist ideology that fuels
attacks like this one.
Lisa is here with more.
>> For the political response to
this tragedy as well as a look
ahead to some critical primary
races tomorrow, I am joined by
her always thought for --
thoughtful political Monday
team.
That is Amy Walter and Tamra
Keith.
Politics Monday is here.
Let's start off with another
unspeakable shooting and some
people in Washington especially
are looking at the words of some
Republicans including this from
Elise Stefanik, the
representative in house
Republican leadership.
Is a Facebook ad she posted last
year.
It warns of a permanent election
insurrection and he finds that
as the unrivaled -- the arrival
of undocumented immigrants.
She has disavowed the Buffalo
shooting.
She represents a district in new
York but some do see that ad as
a reference to what we hear
about, the weight replacement
theory which the suspect in the
Buffalo shooting wrote about.
I'm going to start with you.
What do you think is going on
underneath here?
Why are some Republicans feeding
or not actively trying to
address white anger?
>> I think as this piece -- the
lead-in alluded to, lots of
times when these horrible
tragedies involving guns happen,
we talk about the second
amendment.
In this case we are talking with
the first amendment.
What is free speech exactly?
It has been with us for a long
time should you Kanaan what you
cannot save it what is inciting
violence.
What is ok to be able to talk
about that is a debate we have
been talking about most recently
about look it's posted on the
internet and who is responsible
-- whose responsibility is that.
It is in the political dialogue
as well.
We know that the rhetoric just
keeps adding ramped up -- just
keeps getting ramped up.
The idea -- that it will not
seep into the broader society is
not true.
The more that leaders are
willing to either excuse it or
find ways to switch the topic,
the harder it becomes for
leaders to stand up and say
actually we can draw a line.
There is a first amendment but
this, not acceptable and we need
to hold ourselves even if
internet companies or the
broader world will not hold us
to those standards, we need to
do it.
>> There was a tweet from
another Republican.
A former member of leadership,
Liz Cheney, who tweeted the GOP
leadership has enabled white
nationalism, white supremacy and
anti--- and anti-semitism.
These are kinds of ideas, weight
replacement theory, that used to
be way on the fringe.
How are they now in the
political mainstream?
>> Weight replacement theory was
kkk, neo-nazi stuff.
Then it started seeping in in
theory a more palatable form.
Instead of weight replacement
theory, it is political
replacement theory.
That ad from a least a idea that
Democrats or somebody wants to
bring in lots of illegal
immigrants that can then become
legal and become American
citizens and vote and replace
native born American voters.
That is the theory behind this.
That there would be a liberal
majority.
That is how it went from the
fringes to the Republican
mainstream.
You had in charlottesville those
people marching, chanting with
tiki torches saying Jews will
not replace us.
That was replacement theory in
way that was unpalatable.
>> It was clear what they were
saying.
>> Yes and in the years since
then, it has become something
that is discussed in politics as
like this is something that is
going to happen and that
somebody wants this to happen.
It is not in the exact same
terms as weight replacement
theory and that is what Elise
Stefanik's spokesperson pushed
back on.
She is simply saying there
should not be amnesty.
It all mixes and melds together
that >> Is the whole thing
about, what is free speech and
what is it full rhetoric that
incites people to do terrible
things.
>> And what is there to do?
The new white house press
secretary was asked if the white
house should pushed back more.
Callout people by name like
Tuggle Charles -- like Carlsen
left -- like to go Carlsen.
We play a role too.
Our voters challenged enough?
Who and where does that happen?
>> We have media bubbles.
There is not cross-pollination.
There are people who are paying
close attention to this kid or
other folks who will not hear
much about this at all.
The American population is
invulnerable to receiving
conspiracy theories and
accepting them as a reality.
There is no defined truth.
That sort of socialized and
allows P to go into the dark
recesses of the internet and
find things that confirm their
beliefs and lead to dangerous
places.
>> It is front of mine
especially for those of us in
the media.
Another topic that does overlap
with the sharp divides,
primaries.
We have some tomorrow.
North Carolina, Pennsylvania and
others.
I just got back from the
keystone state.
Fantastic few days there.
Republicans in the senate race
have three very conservative
candidates including this new
surging Kathy Barnett.
Democrats have an unconventional
senate candidate as well, John
federman.
I want to ask you, is the idea
of who can when changing?
The used to be a formula these
are not formulaic candidates.
>> Something like a Dave
Mccormick who is one of the
Republican candidates.
He is a veteran.
He had success in business.
If you went back 10 years to
Republican candidate central
casting, you would find him.
Then trump got elected and the
idea of what is electable has
changed somewhat.
Someone like John federman is
not traditionally considered
even remotely electable.
He shows up in a hoodie and gym
shorts for a meeting with the
president of the United States
and yet he is appealing to rule
voters.
He is appealing to working-class
voters Democrats have been
struggling with.
Someone like cornet grabs
attention, makes people have
passion.
I don't know if they're going to
window primaries.
I'm not here to make
predictions.
I think they are an example of
candidates who are potentially
redefining what it means.
>> Would kinda flip the script.
In 2018 and 2020, the one thing
that unify Democrats was getting
rid of Donald Trump.
That meant electing in primaries
the most electable candidate.
>> Centre, right >> On the
democratic side, you have John
federman not only does not look
the part with the sweatshirt and
the shorts but he comes from the
Bernie Sanders wing of the
party.
I the 2018, 2020 version of
Democrats, they would say that
is dangerous in stay as
conservative as Pennsylvania and
we should elect a more moderate.
What Democrats are looking for
is somebody who is going to be a
fighter because they are
frustrated they are not seeing
that from the party and
Fetterman is that.
>> Great discussion from you