“This is going to be one dynamite company.”

In December of 1985, General Electric (GE) agreed to acquire RCA Corporation (Radio Corporation of America) in a landmark $6.28 billion all-cash deal. Led by CEO Jack Welch (GE) and Chairman Thornton Bradshaw (RCA), it was, at the time, the largest non-oil merger in U.S. corporate history.

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the growing gap between President Trump’s priorities and those of the American people.

Share

Read more

On February 13, 2021, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) was one of just seven Republican senators who voted to convict former President Trump on his impeachment for inciting the January 6 attack on our nation’s Capitol.

“I voted to convict Trump because he is guilty,” Cassidy boldly stated at the time, surprising many political observers who’d predicted he’d side with the president.

It was the correct decision — a patriotic one that required defying the North Star principle that had defined his political party over the previous four years: unconditional loyalty to Donald J. Trump.

Still, Cassidy probably figured his vote would be less politically problematic for him than for other impeachment-supporting Republicans. He had just been reelected for another six-year term. While GOP primary voters were sure to punish pro-impeachment members of the House (like Liz Cheney) a year and a half later, Cassidy would be afforded over half a decade for his deep-red Louisiana constituents to snap free of the MAGA spell, and heal from the bitterness of Trump’s defeat.

But Republicans, by and large, weren’t ready to move on. In service to Trump, the GOP effectively codified the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen (or at minimum, “rigged”). Many Trump supporters even let themselves be duped (by the Tucker Carlson wing of the Right) into believing that January 6 was a false flag operation, or perhaps something no more serious than “peaceful grandmothers” taking a “self-guided tour” of the Capitol. In which case, Trump couldn’t possibly be blamed for his actions during that time, and was naturally deserving of another shot at the White House.

Trump won the 2024 primary race in a landslide, and when a Biden-weary electorate handed him his second general-election win a few months later, Cassidy knew the situation wouldn’t bode well for his 2026 reelection hopes.

After all, the senator had seen what had happened to his Republican colleagues who’d likewise supported Trump’s impeachment. Only two of the ten House members remained in office, and Lisa Murkowski, the only pro-impeachment GOP senator who’d won reelection since then (despite Trump’s best efforts), did so through a complicated ranked-choice voting system.

Suffice to say, Cassidy had a tough political decision to make. If he was determined to follow through with his reelection plans, he would have to go down one of two avenues:

1. Continue to responsibly serve in the Senate with honor and distinction, run on that record, and hope for the best.

2. Grovel at Trump’s feet for the next year and a half, and pray that — unlike in every other circumstance — he would receive forgiveness for his impeachment vote, and not face political retribution.

Neither strategy was going to spare Cassidy’s political career, but at least with the first one, the senator would have been able to leave office with his head held high, knowing he had done right by his country (and his conscience), and ended his tenure with a political legacy to be proud of.

He instead chose the second, convincing himself that he could somehow get back in the president’s good graces by becoming a born again Trump sycophant, similar to how JD Vance, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and other former Trump critics and rivals had managed to.

But it wasn’t enough for Cassidy to simply engage in the same cringe-worthy, over-the-top flattery that his Republican colleagues were all too comfortable with. He felt he needed to also surrender his better judgment on the most consequential decision he would make in Trump’s second term: the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee.

As I detailed back in January:

Cassidy, a highly-respected physician, had expressed deep-seated concerns over [RFK Jr.]. What Cassidy especially found troubling was Kennedy’s long history of nutty vaccine-skepticism (which Kennedy had a financial stake in), and his favoring of wild speculation and rhetorical anecdotes over proven health science. It was quite obvious during the confirmation hearings that Cassidy knew Kennedy was not only grossly unfit for the job, but could even be dangerous with that level of public power.

Cassidy had a moral, ethical, and patriotic responsibility to vote no on RFK Jr. Doing so would have only meant that Trump would have to nominate someone else (like he did after the Matt Gaetz debacle). But that would have embarrassed the president, and been seen as another act of defiance. Cassidy, I’m sure uncomfortably so, prioritized his reelection hopes. He caved to pressure from the White House, and became the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy.

It was a dereliction of duty, plain and simple. The same is true of every other senator that supported Kennedy’s nomination, but Cassidy, more than anyone else (because of his background), knew better.

Cassidy tried to rationalize his controversial decision, saying that Kennedy had offered him assurances that he would never dismantle our country’s vaccine safety systems or remove government guidance for vaccines. But the senator seemed unconvinced by his own words… and with good reason. Within mere months, Kennedy had done both, and he’s spent the last year falsely diagnosing various health conditions with witch-doctor quackery, and defunding promising mRNA research.

Oh, and as expected, Trump urged an election-denying primary opponent into Cassidy’s race, and quickly endorsed her. As GOP primary voters were heading to the polls last Sunday, Trump even got in some extra shots at Cassidy, calling him a “disloyal disaster,” a “sleazebag,” and a “terrible guy.”

When all was said and done, Cassidy got less than 25% of the primary vote. He finished in third place — a two-term incumbent senator who’d won both of his previous statewide elections by double digits.

It’s hard to imagine how Cassidy could have foreseen any other ending. Maybe he figured that if people who’d publicly compared Trump to Hitler could wind up as high-raking members of the Trump administration (as JD Vance and RFK Jr. both did), there was, as Jim Carrey’s character in Dumb and Dumber might have said, “a chance.” But in the president’s mind, even the most disparaging rhetoric is a far lighter infraction than someone using their constitutional authority to hold him accountable for his actions, or even just to prevent him from doing something he really, really, really wants to do.

Following his loss, Cassidy has said he doesn’t regret his impeachment vote — a position he’d been less candid about in recent years. “I had the privilege of voting to uphold the Constitution, isn’t that a great thing?” he told reporters the other day.

What he hasn’t said, despite offering several criticisms of RFK Jr., is whether he regrets voting to confirm him as our HHS Secretary. I’m not sure he has to say anything about it — at least not for my benefit. I’ve seen the answer written across his face every time he’s been asked about the issue, or has faced Kennedy, in the time since.

I suspect this political era will end with many regrets, hallmarked by the blinding allure of political longevity. I think that’s already shown to be the case.

Anyway, Cassidy has another eight months left in office. I suspect he’ll probably use that time the same way that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has since announcing his retirement last year: taking principled positions, pursuing conservative policies, and speaking his mind (regardless of what Trump and his supporters think about it). And in doing so, Cassidy may even manage to clear some of his conscience, and salvage a bit of his reputation.

But it won’t repair the damage caused by his unwillingness to once again do what was right when it really mattered.

Share

If you want to know how far some liberals are willing to go to register their fear and loathing of Donald Trump … read an opinion piece by Frank Bruni in the New York Times.

Here’s how his column begins: “Graham Platner isn’t my ideal Senate candidate. Not even close. I’m deeply troubled by the thinness of his political experience, by the primacy of raw anger in his appeal to voters and by the oddities and ugliness from a Nazi tattoo to a fondness for ‘gay’ and ‘gayest’ putdowns, in his not-so-distant past. It’s a lot to overlook. But if I lived in Maine, I’d vote for him in November.”

Frank Bruni is a thoughtful man of the left, one who is prepared to overlook Platner’s many, let’s call them …. shortcomings. Before we get to why he’s prepared to overlook so much, let’s lay out just what Bruni is willing to accept, reluctantly or otherwise.

Platner has said he was a communist. He said cops are bastards. He called people who post on line, “retarded.” He said war was “the most enjoyable experience of my life.” Working as a bartender he wondered “Why don’t black people tip?” And speaking about women who are concerned about sexual assault, he wrote that “Rape is a real thing. If you’re so worried about it … you might not get blacked out f****d up around people you aren’t comfortable with.”

Yes, Frank Bruni, that really is, as you put it, “a lot to overlook” — even though Platner has acknowledged that the posts were wrong, that they came during a dark time in his life, and he has since deleted them.

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings Sir John: Apparently many residents of a Chicago suburb are angry & upset because Walgreens is closing a store in the high crime area of Chatham due to the high cost of theft AND its employees being assaulted by criminal thugs. Well when LIBERAL DEMOCRATS refuse to adequately punish criminals while simultaneously punishing honest citizens who fight back to protect life & property, what else would the citizens who continue to vote Blue (including likely many of these Walgreens staff & management) EXPECT that corporation to do when it is constantly being robbed and its employees are constantly in danger of being assaulted !? WHY don’t the citizens & local politicians blame the ones committing the crimes instead of corporate management? What are your thoughts on this story? —“Take Two Red Pills & Call Me In The Morning” Regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. Chicago citizens obviously shouldn’t be upset at Walgreens for closing that location. They should be upset at the criminals who forced the location out of business and the local government for being ineffectual at dealing with the crime problem there.

As for why citizens continue to vote for a status-quo environment known for its high crime-rate, I suppose some of it has to do with voter priorities, like social programs and government-created jobs. I think a lot of it also has to do with the Democratic political machine in Chicago. It’s been around for many decades, has an airtight relationship with major community and interest groups, and has the capacity to politically overwhelm any outsider (or Republican) candidate offering a stark contrast.

I should add that I am by no means an expert on Chicago politics, so there are probably additional explanations.

Which progressive “intellectual” most annoys you? — Ben G.

Lol. Probably Robert Reich, and mainly for two reasons:

1. My progressive friends keep sharing his stupid videos on Facebook.

2. The points he makes in those videos are rarely intelligent, and often aren’t factual. He just articulates emotions-based progressive ideology (rich people suck, poor people shouldn’t have to pay for stuff, etc.), in a way that makes other progressives think he’s making intellectual, realistic arguments (which he isn’t).

Annoying is the right word, Ben.

Hi John, I was a bit surprised that you and Mr. G. both said you would vote for Mitt Romney for president (not that you believe he will run, but if he did). My reasoning is that, while he seems like a genuinely good, decent, and honorable human being, he was not exactly for small government. Romney-care is one example, but I always saw him as more of a Herbert Hoover type -- well-meaning, an excellent businessman, a person who considers himself a problem-solver, but not a huge believer in free-markets. Am I wrong? — Bob B.

Hi Bob. I was lukewarm on Romney in 2012 (I voted for Newt in the primary), in part because I did indeed question his conservative credentials. Romneycare (in blue-state Massachusetts) was one reason, though I think his later explanation actually made sense: the state’s Democratic legislature had written it, had a veto-proof majority, and was hell-bent on making it law with or without his support. So, as governor, he stepped in and tried to make it better, and in doing so basically took political ownership of it (an effort to take a lemon and make lemonade out of it). Regardless, I felt a lot better once Paul Ryan joined the ticket, and the campaign’s focus was on economic/fiscal issues.

I became much more impressed with Romney in 2016, when he opposed Trump on principle, and publicly said what many Republicans knew was right, but were too cowardly to say so. When he became a U.S. Senator two years later, he served as a principled conservative (much more conservative and pro-free-market than Trump), and again showed a lot of moral courage, this time in standing up to Trump’s abuses of power.

So yeah, at this point in history, I have a pretty high opinion of Romney. I hope he’s enjoying retirement. Thanks for listening!

I don’t think Mr. Romney distanced himself from Romneycare until his POTUS run. And what about in 1994 when he ran for Sen. Kennedy’s seat and tried to out-liberal Sen. Kennedy? Personally, Mr. Romney appears very decent. But when he’s politicking he can be chameleon. — Bob H.

Bob, I don’t recall for sure exactly when Mitt Romney began offering the kind of nuance on Romneycare that I described in my previous answer (to the other Bob), but it probably was when he ran for president in 2008. Regardless, I’ve looked into his explanation, and it does appear to be accurate. And you’re right about early is his political career, when he did try to appeal to Massachusetts voters’ liberal leanings in his race against Ted Kennedy. When Romney first entered the national political scene, I would have been comfortable calling him a chameleon too (and I may have even actually done that).

But as I’ve written before, I can’t think of a Republican politician who’s been more intellectually and ideologically consistent than Mitt Romney over the last 15 years. And like I told the other Bob, he’s far more conservative than today’s GOP and its leader.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump is considering pardoning 250 people on his birthday, in commemoration of our nation’s 250th birthday. Do you think he’ll go through with it? — Alex D.

Probably. I mean, why wouldn’t he? He’s already pardoned thousands of individuals, including hundreds of violent criminals (some were war criminals), major drug traffickers, and corrupt CEOs. By the time he leaves office, he’ll likely issue sweeping pardons to much of his administration, numerous associates, and of course himself. A mere 250 at this point, insultingly framed as an act of patriotism, feels entirely realistic. I guess we’ll see.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“We’re showing Mr. Gorbachev something: This is how we do things in America.”

In 1985, a new book called “A Time for Peace” became a big commercial success. What made that success ironic is that the book was by Mikhail Gorbachev — a proud communist who, at the time, was the freshly minted leader of the Soviet Union.

The book was a collection of Gorbachev’s speeches, interviews, and letters that included his political views on various issues. There was still a consumer demand for it come Christmas time of that year, and capitalists in America were finding new, innovative ways to sell more copies.

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

A recent YouGov poll revealed something troubling that a number of other polls (along with a fair amount of anecdotal evidence online) have suggested for some time: a significant portion of Democrats believe that the assassination attempts on President Trump’s life were “staged.”

26% believe it of the incident at Trump’s golf course. 34% attribute it to what went down last month at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And a whopping 42% believe that the shooting at Butler Farm Show Grounds in 2024, during which Trump was shot in the ear and a spectator was killed, was phony-baloney.

In other words, the more dramatic the incident, the more likely it was staged.

Many on the political right have been touting these findings as proof that the Democratic Party has a serious conspiracy-theory problem on their hands.

Pro-Trump columnist Byron York called the situation a “Democratic fantasy world,” and I’m inclined to agree with him. I think it’s delusional to buy into these occurrences being staged, absent of proof, and based primarily (if not entirely) on the notion that being targeted for (and escaping) political violence elevates Trump’s stature… and perceptually broad-strokes those who strongly oppose him as being aligned with violent lunatics.

Sure, some would argue that Trump’s lack of character, and his long history of gaslighting the American people, should not afford him the benefit of the doubt. They would say it warrants at least considering the idea that he and his team orchestrated these incidents — especially the Butler one. After all, the imagery of Trump rising from under his podium with blood streaming down his face, clenching a fist in the air and encouraging his supporters to “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, felt like something straight out of a Hollywood production.

But that’s the same deeply flawed logic used by 9/11 Truthers, and those who’ve long insisted that the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage. It’s built on the premise that something so visually dynamic and conducive to a preferred narrative can’t possibly be on the up and up. This is a mindset that values emotional interpretation over factual evaluation, and it can lead to the latter being disregarded entirely.

Suffice to say, that’s not a healthy thing for society. Sometimes it’s even outright dangerous, which is why rational and reasonable people of good faith ought to call it out whenever they see it.

But that’s not quite what’s happening with much of the push-back I’m observing against the “staged assassination” stuff. Far too many of those appropriately denouncing it are doing so from the bottom of the same conspiratorial nesting box.

To this day, national polls show that 60-70% of Republicans still believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Five and a half years later, despite the ongoing theatrics (including from our current president), the facts are no more on those people’s side than they are on the side of those who believe in the “staged assassination” nonsense. Those willing to call out one of those groups, but not the other, are part of the problem.

Case in point, if you read Byron York’s columns, or follow him on social media, you know that he’s barely been critical at all of the widespread Republican belief that Joe Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election. In fact, York has been pretty understanding of (and even sympathetic to) the view, developing arguments over the years that minimize, trivialize, and otherwise downplay its significance. In typical York fashion, he’s put far more focus on what he sees as Democratic “overreaction” to the falsity.

But when it comes to the belief that attempts on Donald Trump’s life were staged, York laments “a political atmosphere in which some people will believe anything about their hated opponent.”

Go figure.

On a side note, it seems that there are some folks who actually believe both of these major conspiracy theories. 7% of Republicans in the YouGov poll think that the Butler assassination-attempt was staged, and, for some reason, twice as many think that the one at the correspondents’ dinner was staged. The numbers for independents are in the low 20s for each. Comparably, about 9% of Democrats think Trump won the 2020 election, and around 20% of independents believe that. This overlap would at least suggest that some bipartisanship and intellectual consistency still exists in this country… though not in a positive way.

The sad reality is that large portions of both major parties believe in thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories, some of which have been harmful to our democratic foundations. What’s needed to combat the problem is a strengthening of our shared sense of reality, and a serious commitment to weeding out misinformation.

Unfortunately, in these deeply polarized times — in which partisan division is both a political resource and a very lucrative business model — that’s a very tall order.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the Democrats’ War on Billionaires, the parties’ presidential prospects going into the 2028 election, and the Pentagon’s recent release of UFO videos.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

So, we have now learned that it was pretty much common knowledge in Washington that Eric Swalwell, the seven-term California Democrat who recently resigned from Congress, was doing a lot more than flirting with young women, including some on his staff.

“The broad contours of Swalwell’s alleged behavior, if not the specifics, did not come as a surprise to many working in and around politics, especially in Washington,” is what Politico now tells us.

Maybe Washington insiders weren’t surprised. But it sure came as a surprise to anyone who doesn’t spend time trading gossip in the corridors of power — and to a lot of voters in California who kept re-electing him and were likely on the verge of sending him to the governor’s mansion.

The New York Post reported last week that Swalwell “sent nude photos and videos of himself masturbating through Snapchat” and “shared unsolicited nudes with several woman as a married East Bay congressman and held meetings at a chain restaurant known for scantily clad waitresses — leading ex-colleagues to brand him a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ figure who harassed women privately while crusading for equal rights in public.”

“Capitol Hill gossips, including journalists from whom one might have hoped to hear something before now, evidently knew about Mr. Swalwell’s behavior for years,” writes Barton Swain in The Wall Street Journal. “A passel of female former staffers accusing him of undue advances, assault and rape — whether speaking at the behest of a rival campaign or otherwise — made the case of Mr. Swalwell no longer ignorable even by a press that would prefer not to hear about it.”

For the record: Swalwell, who dropped out of the race for governor, has denied the accusations of rape. In a social media post he wrote, “I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment,” adding, “I will fight the serious, false allegations.”

Fair enough. Allegations are not convictions. But here’s the question that refuses to go away: If this was a not-so-secret secret, why didn’t the rest of us hear about it sooner— from the same journalists who pride themselves on “speaking truth to power”?

Forgive me for stating the obvious. A lot of journalists weren’t interested in pursuing rumors about Swalwell precisely because he was a progressive Democrat who could be counted on to show up on cable TV and bash Donald Trump on cue.

And let’s not kid ourselves: In today’s media environment, despising President Trump buys you a lot of goodwill. It buys you patience. It buys you the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, it even buys you silence.

So much for fair and honest journalism.

“It took two liberal social-media ‘influencers’ to track down stories from women about their negative experiences and spoon-feed them to CNN before the mainstream media reported them,” Alysia Finley notes in The Wall Street Journal. “And if talk of Mr. Swalwell’s alleged exploits hadn’t been swirling on social media, would reporters have investigated or reported them?”

We all know the answer to that. They could have shown curiosity. They could have done what journalists are supposed to do: dig, verify, report. Instead, they looked the other way — until they couldn’t.

“The accusations against Mr. Swalwell,” Finley writes, “came out only when airing them was necessary to protect the Democratic Party. Had the media sat on the story, it might have blown up on Democrats if Mr. Swalwell advanced through the June 2 jungle primary to face Republican Steve Hilton in the general election. He [Swalwell] was useful to them, until he wasn’t. And then he had to go.”

Swalwell always struck me as annoying — not because his politics differed from mine, but because of the smug, self-satisfied way he carried himself. And while we’re at it, let’s add “hypocritical” to the list.

During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Swalwell, like many other Democrats, presented himself as a champion of women, declaring, “We have to believe all women” who accuse men of sexual misconduct. But that was then, before his own story involving women went public.

Yes, loathing Donald Trump helped propel Eric Swalwell into the spotlight. It made him a darling of liberal cable news channels and a rising star in his party. But loathing the president only takes you so far. When you become a liability — when your baggage threatens the brand — you’re no longer an asset. You’re expendable.

And that’s the part worth remembering. Not just about Eric Swalwell, but about the system that protected him until it didn’t.

Because this story isn’t only about one politician’s alleged misconduct. It’s about a media culture that decides which stories matter — and when they matter. It’s about whose sins are front-page news and whose are politely ignored.

In the end, Swalwell didn’t fall because journalists suddenly discovered their watchdog instincts. He fell because the political math changed. He fell when he became a liability.

He was useful right up until he wasn’t.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

How was President Obama needlessly divisive? I asked you this once before but you didn’t answer.

Granted, one instance was when he said the Cambridge police responding to a possible break-in “acted stupidly.” That remark was stupid, and he stepped on the message of his press conference (I have no idea what it was). But he apparently learned from it. He had that “beer summit,” which was better than nothing. In the polarized aftermath of the Trevon Martin case he obliquely emphasized with those outraged by the acquittal but ended up by saying something to effect that we must respect the system. He hit the right cord. Once, in his 2008 campaign he made an off-hand reference to racial prejudice against him. Other that those two isolated instances I don’t know how he was NEEDLESSLY divisive. Many of his supporters were divisive, but that’s a different matter. — Bob H.

Hi Bob. I think you’re illustrating what Jessica Riedl was describing, in that most Obama supporters simply didn’t see it (though, as a longtime reader, I’m guessing you read at least some of my several writings on the topic years ago). I think it’s even more difficult for those people to see it in retrospect, now that we’ve been in the Trump-era of American politics for over a decade. Trump, like I stated in my original point, has been far worse, and more blatant about it (including borrowing techniques from Obama, and injecting them with steroids).

Anyway, if you want some examples of how I described Obama, here you go…

Obama liked to present himself as our country’s moral conscience. If you agreed with him, you were doing right by America. If you opposed him, you were a petty, uncaring person who was doing harm to our country and its citizens. Case in point, Obama and members of his administration liked to refer to their opposition as people who were “betting against America” and “on the wrong side of history.” Obama also made a habit of beginning sentences with, “There are those who say…” or “There are Republicans who say…,” and then finishing those sentences with a straw-man argument that no Republican (or anyone else) was making. His supporters would nod along, while righties understandably resented having false, demeaning positions assigned to them, from which Obama reliably declared the moral high-ground over.

This was a large part of his Obamacare campaign. He portrayed Republicans as cruel and callous for opposing his legislation, despite that legislation being opposed by most Americans, and premised on multiple false selling-points (including Politfact’s “Lie of the Year”). As someone who personally lost both his affordable insurance plan and his doctor as a result of Obamacare, I can’t tell you how frustrating it was to be told that my (and millions of others’) objection to it meant that I lacked compassion and wanted others to suffer.

On fiscal policy, you may recall that Obama, at one point, called a truce of sorts, inviting Republicans to present serious debt-reduction and entitlement-reform plans to him for a good-faith discussion. When Paul Ryan answered the call, Obama invited Ryan for a front-row seat to his speech on the topic. Obama then proclaimed from the stage (and to the world) that Ryan’s budget would essentially lead to the destruction of America, including letting bridges collapse and forcing autistic and disabled kids to fend for themselves. It was an epic double-cross, and a shameful display of hyper-partisan demagoguery. (By the way, recent studies have shown that Ryan’s rather modest reforms would have put our country on a much better trajectory — both with our national debt and entitlements). Glad we dodged that bullet!

As Bob Woodward described quite thoroughly in his book, The Price of Politics, Obama never made any serious attempt to work with Republicans, yet insisted at every opportunity that he was bending over backwards to accommodate them. It was pure gaslighting.

Obama spent the first two years of his presidency blaming every negative metric there was on the Bush administration. With the economy still struggling by 2012 (along with Obama’s poll numbers), Obama built his reelection campaign on a class warfare theme. He created corporate scapegoats and stoked jealousy among the electorate. Wealthy people were portrayed as villains who weren’t paying their “fair share,” and the middle class was told it was wealthy people (not failed public policy preventing a solid recovery) who were causing their fiscal woes. Obama even refused to denounce his super PAC for falsely accusing his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, of somehow killing a cancer victim with his greediness.

The Obama administration went after conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh, making them the face of their opposition. They declared that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization, warned other news outlets not to follow Fox’s lead, and even went as far as to trying to eliminate FNC's presence in the White House press pool (which other media organizations loudly denounced, and pressured an end to). The administration referred to the Tea Party as “teabaggers” (a sexually derogatory term), portrayed the movement as inherently racist, and called them “hostage takers” and “terrorists.”

And don’t even get me started on the “War on Women.”

I could go on and on, Bob, but I’m hoping at least some of these examples jog your memory. Unfortunately, a lot of Obama supporters still dismiss them (and many others) out of hand, and claim that Obama was only divisive to racists.

Others (as you did in a separate comment) like to evoke non-controversies like the “tan suit” stuff, in order to dismiss Republicans as being comically opposed to anything having to do with Obama. In reality, I can count how many people gave a s*** about Obama’s tan suit on one hand. As someone who watched way too many hours of Fox News back then, I hadn’t even heard of the supposed “scandal” until The Daily Show spliced together a handful of clips, and presented it as some big blow-up on the Right (which, again, it wasn’t). When lefties bring up the “tan suit” to dismiss criticism of Obama, it’s not much different to me than when MAGA folks dismiss criticism of Trump as people just objecting to his “mean tweets.” It’s a nonsense narrative.

Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough on this topic. You got your money’s worth this week, Bob. 😉

What do you think about political candidates running AI video-ads depicting their opponents saying and going things they’ve never done? I’m seeing more of that. — Ben G.

I don’t like it, Ben. AI has gotten so good in this arena (among others) that it’s almost impossible these days to the tell the difference between the real deal and a fabrication. I think that’s potentially dangerous, and not just in the realm of politics. Our country’s citizens already have a serious problem with unhesitatingly buying into propaganda and bias-confirming falsities. This type of thing makes it even worse.

I get the impression there was recently yet another round in the Dispatch vs. Bulwark wars, with some NR aligned people also getting in the scrum, apparently set off by Bill Kristol endorsing Court packing, which I find really confusing. I mean, I certainly think that Court packing is a stupid idea, to say the least. But I am a bit confused about why that specific comment inspired another round of fighting over Who Has The More Principled Approach To The Trump Era.

Personally, I think Bulwarkism is commendable in being anti- Trump, but lately they’re starting to forget *why* they’re anti- Trump, by playing footsie with illiberal ideas (like Court Packing) and elements on the Left (like Hasan Piker). And that although many individuals at NR have stuck to their principles, unfortunately the publication as a whole is, if not quite pro-Trump, anti- anti- Trump by focusing on and being way more outraged by examples of Leftist excesses than Trumpian ones.

I think TD is doing the best at balancing various principles, but even they aren’t perfect. I mean, this week they platformed Jeremiah Johnson, who wrote eloquently against Democrats embracing Hasan Piker ... Yet also recently encouraged people to vote for Graham Platner, because “control of the Senate is too important to risk”. I didn’t even realize until that post that Johnson is apparently a Democrat, but at least that is a defense against the charge that TD is engaging in the kind of performative anti- leftism that I certainly think NR does at times. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. There was indeed a big Bulwark/Dispatch online hullabaloo, though I didn’t see much Dispatch involvement in it. As you said, it began with Bill Kristol’s nod to court-packing, which drew criticism from National Review’s Charles Cooke, which led to Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende making the below observation:

There really wasn’t a reason to drag The Dispatch into the conversation for a Bulwark comparison, other than that MAGA and anti-anti-Trumpers hate both of them for being critical of Trump, and like to pretend they’re basically the same (which is very much false).

Anyway, very broadly speaking, I think Sean was right (his post went viral). And people at The Bulwark actually agreed with him:

I also mostly agree with your assessments, Aylene, of the three publications mentioned. I’ll just add a couple of things:

• I like (and am friendly with) some of the people at The Bulwark, but a number of their commentators sound like Democratic hacks in their reflexive opposition of Trump. If one has to change their position on an issue, just to get on the opposite side of it as Trump, their argument lacks principle and credibility. A lot of people may not care about those things, but I do.

• Regarding Jeremiah Johnson (who’s been a Dispatch contributor for some time), he’s indeed a centrist Democrat whose focus is on restoring sanity to his party — including calling out its extremists. He’s kind of an independent outlier, which I think attracted The Dispatch to him in the first place. Thus, his position on Piker doesn’t surprise me at all. I hadn’t heard about his position on Platner, which I’m confident no one else writing for The Dispatch shares.

As I’ve stated many times, from a conservative point of view, I think The Dispatch does the best job of the three media organizations.

Sir John — Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson’s policies seem to be what spurred on the Starbucks Empire exodus from Progressive Leftist Seattle to Conservative Nashville Tennessee. I don’t know how many Starbucks bigwigs and employees voted for Katie Wilson, but for those that did, what the hell did they expect would happen after she gained power? For that matter, what the hell did Mayor Katie Wilson expect that Starbucks and other businesses would do because of her policies? For the record, I’m not a fan of Starbucks OR progressive politicians, but I can’t help relishing the schadenfreude when I see progressive leftists reaping the curses of their own short-sighted foolishness. Your thoughts? — “Starbucks Liberal Latte Tears” regards from The Emperor

Like you, Emperor, I don’t care much about Pacific Northwest politics or Starbucks coffee. If a business environment becomes too difficult in a particular region or municipality, I’m all for private businesses moving to friendlier ones. My hope, whenever something like this happens, is for governing bodies to learn a lesson from it and change public policy. And if they don’t, my hope is for constituents to vote them out of office and elect leaders who will. Unfortunately, in these big-city strongholds, that rarely happens. Some of the most hardened ideologies are disconnected from considerations of success and failure. It’s very weird, but it’s sadly the reality. Decline is often a choice.

In regard to your Rubio column and your question about whether the MAGA base would support him in 2028, I’m seeing many of them online say they would. I know that’s not concrete evidence of anything, and don’t know if they’d still feel that way two years from now. Something funny though: When I ask these people what was wrong with Rubio in 2016, they say “he wasn’t ready yet.” And Donald Trump was??? — Alex D.

Alex, I’ve been running into that exact same thing online. It’s as if they’re all reading from the same script, and you’re right to be amused by it. Rubio was by no means perfect in 2016. He tripped up a few times in his campaigning. But good grief, he’d been a U.S. Senator for five years, served on multiple important committees, and may have had the strongest grasp of issues and policies of anyone who ran that year. Trump, on the other hand, knew nothing about governance or public policy, and often spoke nonsensically (albeit defiantly) about both. He won the nomination largely on insults, attitude, and his celebrity persona. The notion that Rubio was a novice in comparison is absurd.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“A 40-something year-old man who couldn’t remember the months of the year in sequence.”

In 2012, when I was with HBO’s Real Sports, we worked on an extensive story called “Head Games” about Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, and its link to concussions in NFL football players. The multiple-piece series (and yours truly) won a prestigious Alfred I. duPont Award, and shed new light on a serious issue that previously hadn’t gotten enough attention.

Today’s video isn’t the piece itself (Real Sports rarely released full stories online), but rather an interview with producer, Joseph Perskie, that I believe was shot and put together by people at the Alfred I. duPont Awards.

It’s an interesting look at how the story began, and where it went.

Read more

I thought the Marco Rubio of the pre-Trump era was pretty great.

A young, passionate Reaganite with an inspiring immigrant-family story and a strong grasp of important issues, Rubio was widely believed to be the future of the GOP. He rose up quickly through the ranks of Republican politics, earning a Florida House seat at the age of 28. Six years later, he became Florida House Speaker. He became a favorite of the Tea Party movement during President Obama’s first term, and by his 40th birthday, he was already a U.S. Senator.

In the spring of 2015, having built an impressive national profile, and having established himself as a leading voice on numerous issues, he announced that he was running for president.

As talented and popular as Rubio was at the time, capturing the 2016 nomination was always going to be a tall order, especially with 16 other Republican hopefuls to contend with, including governors, fellow senators, and a pop-culture icon whose outrageous theatrics sucked all the oxygen out of the room. In the end, a plurality of Republican voters (roughly one-third) chose the latter, apparently believing that a celebrity-businessman, serial adulterer, and lifelong Democrat (with his own reality-show, no less) was the best available choice to represent the party.

To Rubio’s credit, he was one of the last men standing in the race (though the contest was never really close). He suspended his campaign in mid-March of 2016, before yours truly had a chance to cast his intended vote for him.

It’s a shame. I think the Rubio of 2016 was exactly what the GOP — and more importantly the country — needed at that point in history. If he had won the nomination, I think he would have destroyed the immensely unlikable Hillary Clinton in the general election, and ushered in a conservative era of governance that would have put our nation on a far better trajectory than what we’ve seen over the last decade. I think he not only would have delivered the same conservative wins as Trump did in his first term with Republican congressional majorities (notably on judges and tax reform), but also many, many more — including desperately needed fiscal reforms to address our skyrocketing national debt. And I’m confident it would have happened without the daily chaos, needless levels of societal polarization, and breathtaking abuses of power.

But again, that’s not the path that America took. And as the GOP dropped farther down the rabbit-hole of personality-cultism and big-government populism, Rubio — albeit awkwardly at times — just kind of went along with it.

When tasked with having to choose between what was morally and institutionally right, and maintaining his political viability, he talked a good game but reliably chose the latter. He made extraordinary capitulations to stay within his party’s good graces (including letting President Trump off the hook for Jan. 6), and as many have joked over the years, the purgatory-like expressions on his face often told the story of his despair.

But a decade into this era of a Trump-servile GOP, Rubio’s stock is on the rise again.

As Secretary of State, he has performed well beyond expectations, and established himself as the most competent (and comically overworked) member of Trump’s cabinet. In contrast with other party leaders, he speaks glowingly rather than pessimistically of America. His statesmanship and command of important issues have even impressed his ideological foes. And recent Republican polling of 2028 presidential preferences shows that Rubio is quickly catching up to Vice President JD Vance, who many on the right had all but coronated as the heir apparent to MAGA.

Of course, some of that shift is likely attributable to Vance’s political weaknesses. Truth be told, Vance has never been a particularly effective nor likeable politician. In fact, he was well on his way to losing his Senate primary in Ohio in 2022 when Trump came to his rescue in the eleventh hour. Vance went on to win that year’s general election, but by a significantly smaller margin than every other Republican on the same red-state ballot.

Vance’s most memorable moments since becoming vice president have been of him causing the Volodymyr Zelenskyy dust-up in the Oval Office, campaigning for disgraced former Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, and presumably being behind the Iran-War leaks coming out of the White House. Vance’s trademark smugness and condescending tone certainly haven’t helped.

Still, once can’t take away the positive recognition Rubio has earned for himself. Even people like me, who’d given up hope on him long ago, are starting to come around on the idea of him being a reasonable off-ramp — in a couple years — from the Trump GOP.

Is he my ideal choice? No. I’d much prefer someone who didn’t sell off parts of their soul, and call into question their commitment to the Constitution, all for political job-security. But I’m also enough of a realist to understand that those who honorably stood up to Trump, when it mattered the most, have no future in the modern Republican Party. (Trump has personally seen to that).

The rise of Rubio also raises some questions. Does he even want to run for president again? (His social-media team seems to think so). And if he does choose to run, would he do it in 2028? President Trump is immensely unpopular at the moment, and two years from now the Republican brand may be so diminished that serious GOP contenders may want to sit out the presidential cycle, and bide their time until 2032.

Personally, I hope that isn’t the case. Most politicians who make that calculation seem to miss their moment, and voters move on from them. Plus, with the Democrats still a mess, and seemingly not having learned much from their painful 2024 loss, I’m not convinced a Republican can’t win in 2028. If that door is indeed open, it would be a farce to cede the nomination to JD Vance, some know-nothing podcaster, or Kid Rock.

One also has to wonder if a sufficient number of MAGA faithfuls would support Rubio. Trump-critical conservatives like me have our own trepidation about him, but as part of the pre-Trump GOP establishment, Rubio is suspicious to them too — perhaps even more so (and they make up a larger portion of the Republican base).

There’s also Trump himself to consider. The president has a history of putting his most loyal government servants in the unenviable position of having to choose between what he personally wants, and upholding the rule of law. And if they choose the latter, he quickly throws them under the bus. If you don’t believe me, ask Mike Pence, Bill Barr, and Jeff Sessions. Heck, even Pam Bondi all but surrendering the DOJ to Trump’s bottomless appetite for retribution couldn’t save her job.

In that respect, a Rubio candidacy could be over before it starts.

Given the alternatives, I hope that’s not the case. I’m a longtime proponent of both parties putting forth their best and most qualified representatives to serve in the White House. And my gut tells me that underneath it all, Rubio still believes in the same things he believed in, and campaigned on, ten years ago. If so, that would be a major upgrade for both the party and the country.

Then again, my gut could easily be wrong. It’s happened before.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the impenetrable bubble many politically engaged individuals choose to live in.

Share

Read more

If Cole Allen, the man charged with trying to assassinate President Trump, is found guilty of his crimes, he may very well spend the rest of his life locked up in prison.

This was not some social outcast living on the margins of society. He was a man of intellect, a man who graduated from one of America’s most prestigious research universities — the California Institute of Technology — a man who served as a leader of the school’s Christian Fellowship.

So how could such a man do what he’s accused of doing?

From his social media posts and his manifesto, we get a glimpse into his mindset. He didn’t just oppose Donald Trump — he despised him. “I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done,” he wrote.

“Rage.” That word matters. Because rage isn’t simply about the force we conjure up to sound tough when we want to win an argument or to come off as morally superior when we’re trying to win an election. Rage is about something else entirely. It’s about seeing your opponent not simply as wrong, but as intolerable.

And when you get to that point, anything is possible. The normal rules of a civil society go out the window.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, psychoanalyst Jonathan Alpert offered an observation that should give all of us pause.

“When people are described as fundamentally dangerous or illegitimate,” he writes, “it changes how actions against them are seen. For most people, that language remains mere language. But for someone unstable, hearing it often enough can lower the psychological barrier to acting. It can begin to feel less like a choice and more like a kind of obligation.”

In other words, the leap from thinking to actually doing gets shorter. The internal voice that might have said, “this is wrong” gets quieter. And what once seemed unthinkable starts to feel not only conceivable — but obligatory.

That doesn’t mean rhetoric — even heated rhetoric — causes violence in any simple, direct way. For most of us “language remains mere language.” But it isn’t serious to pretend that words just bounce off the walls and float away.

And let’s be honest about the language that’s been used.

Donald Trump has been called a fascist. He’s been labeled an existential threat to democracy. He’s been compared — repeatedly — to Adolf Hitler. Not just in the fever swamps of the internet, but in mainstream discourse, from commentators, academics, and yes, politicians. Many, many politicians. During the 2024 presidential campaign, even Kamala Harris, when asked if she thought Donald Trump was a fascist, instantly replied, “Yes, I do. Yes, I do”

But if you truly believe that Donald Trump, or any political leader, is in the same league as one of history’s greatest monsters — then what exactly are you signaling to people who are less stable, less restrained, and more susceptible to extreme thinking?

That’s not a rhetorical question.

Because once you define someone as a uniquely dangerous, you’re no longer just arguing against him. You’re casting him as a problem that must be stopped.

But at what cost? That’s where things get murky. That’s where the lines blur.

Now, to be absolutely clear — and this shouldn’t even need saying, but in today’s climate it does — the responsibility for violence lies with the person who commits it. If Cole Allen is found guilty, he is responsible for his actions.

But responsibility and influence aren’t the same thing.

Allen didn’t invent his worldview out of thin air. He absorbed it from somewhere — from the sludge that defines way too much of our culture, our media — especially our social media — and our modern political life. He didn’t need to look hard to find people telling him, in one form or another, that Donald Trump wasn’t just wrong — but was dangerous, illegitimate, even evil.

Most people hear that and move on with their lives. They vote against him. They argue about him. And that’s usually the end of it.

But some people don’t stop there. Some people take the next step.

And when they do, we’re left trying to explain how something so extreme could happen — how an intelligent, educated person could cross a line most of us would never even think of approaching.

Maybe the better question is this: Why are we so surprised?

If we keep raising the temperature — if we keep telling ourselves that every election is a battle for the soul of the nation, that every opponent is an existential threat to democracy —then eventually someone is going to act like they believe it.

And when that happens, it won’t be enough to say, “That’s not what we meant.” Because at some point, we have to be honest about what we’re saying, about how others might hear it — and about what happens next.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

I was reading a lot of the deranged responses to your Obama post. It’s insane how many people still think it’s a racist to criticize him. — Ben G.

Ben, as usual, I’m now going to have to explain to people what you’re talking about. Lol. (It’s okay, I don’t mind).

I posted this the other day on X, and yeah, it go a lot of attention:

I’ve made the point a few times over the years, and seemingly whenever I do, a ton of Obama fans fly into my mentions out of nowhere to prove me right. I understand lefties not agreeing with my conservative critiques of Obama, but the inability of so many of them to even understand how needlessly divisive he was, in how he went about his politicking, is a true testament to the power of partisanship. Many of them truly believe Obama was a good-faith politician, who was nothing but unifying in his approach to his opposition, but had his hand repeatedly slapped away by Republicans.

Conservative economist, Jessica Riedl, agreed with me, and summarized the issue quite well:

This naturally led to a whole bunch of Obama fans calling the two of racists, because, in their minds, Obama transcended politics. He was, as Charles Krauthammer used to say, “always on the side of the angels.”

So far, the simplest explanation seems to be the case; the [WHCD] shooter was a loon whose rants about the Trump Administration and the complicity of anyone even allowing Trump to breathe same air, could come straight out of Bluesky, where he actually may have had an account, but turned out to actually be serious. He saw Trump the same way Mangione likely saw Thompson, that he was morally, even if not legally, culpable for people suffering and dying, and so deserved capital punishment.

I suppose though that it’s a good sign that most Bluesky Libs aren’t endorsing what to me is the obvious logical conclusion of the “Trump is an Evil Pedophilic Dictator and anyone who doesn’t actively oppose literally everything he does, they are Complicit” rhetoric. Instead, they are going with a “It Was Obviously Staged By Trump To Court Sympathy And Boost His Poll Numbers” conspiracy theory. (Team Trump, to be fair, has certainly fed into that by using the incident to shill for Trump’s ballroom project.)

But what also disturbs me, is that compared to the earlier Trump assassination attempt in 2024, or even the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year, there really hasn’t been any loud calls to rethink where we’re going or for all sides to eschew political violence. The vibe is instead, “This is what we are now, a country in which political violence is just something that happens, and we just have to live with it. Might as well just take advantage of these events and use them as ammunition against our political enemies.” Or maybe I am being too cynical? — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I’ll take this one point at a time…

First, I think it’s kind of weird that Bluesky is often singled out as a bastion of far-left extremism. From my perspective (I have an account there, though I don’t use it much), it’s no more wing-nutty and vitriolic than any other social-media platform. That’s not a defense of it, or anything; it’s just an acknowledgement that political extremism is represented on all of these major platforms. In fact, I’ve seen every bit the level of evil and insanity (and more of it) on X.

Anyway, your broader observations are largely the same as mine. Lots of people on both sides of the political divide reflexively go into conspiracy mode whenever some calamitous, high-profile event makes their political team look bad, and their political opposition look good. They’re so firm in their belief that they are the good guys, and their opponents are the bad guys, that they can’t bring themselves to accept the event as being authentic. The denial is basically a defense mechanism. That’s how a lot of lefties have convinced themselves that the assassination attempts on Trump were fake, and how a lot of righties have convinced themselves that Trump won the 2020 election, and that January 6 was some kind of false-flag operation.

To your last point, I agree that it does appear as though political violence is now tolerable or even excusable to a growing number of Americans. I think that’s a very worrisome cultural development. As I told Bernie on this week’s No BS Zone, I think both sides (especially their leadership) need to lower the temperature, stand firmly and vocally against political violence, and support strong legal punishment for those who commit political violence.

John: My brain wants to draw parallels between the Mike Vrabel – Dianna Russini story and SPLC’s federal indictment. Besides the gossipy story of two public people canoodling in a private resort (Vrabel and Russini are each married to others), the more important aspect is journalistic credibility. How can we trust a reporter who is literally in bed with one of her sources and subjects? Similarly, the SPLC’s credibility will be shot if they were truly encouraging (and paying for) the very racist behavior they were supposedly fighting. Will these stories and themes have legs beyond the current news cycle? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. This is not going to be a satisfying answer, but I haven’t had a chance to familiarize myself much with either of the stories you mentioned. But speaking in broad terms, a journalist sleeping with his or her source obviously goes against basic journalistic ethics. And yes, it absolutely violates the public’s trust. We’ll get a much better picture on the SPLC stuff as the case moves forward, but it feels pretty damning, and we might not even know the extent of the corruption at this point. I wish I had enough faith in the Trump DOJ to feel confident they’ve got the goods, but their track record thus far has been abysmal. We’ll see.

As for whether these stories/themes will have legs beyond the current news-cycle, it’s hard to say. It seems like every day, there’s some big, new, national story that wipes the previous day’s from the public conscience. Of course, partisan-media outlets will keep any such stories front and center, if it’s helpful to. So, there’s that.

Greetings Sir John — according to recent reports, that liberal bastion of anti-white supremacy and hatred has been donating large amounts of money to — wait for it —wait for it — RACIST HATE GROUPS! They allegedly have been funding the KKK and the Aryan Nation to name only two, and the virtuous LEFTIST LIBERAL SPLC also allegedly secretly funded the Unite The Right March in CHARLOTTESVILLE! Why, we ask? Well apparently that old Boogeyman of white supremacy just isn’t as prevalent or powerful as it once was, so in order to continue to push the narrative that white supremacy IS “the biggest threat to democracy today,” as Joe Biden himself noted, well it became necessary for the SPLC to give huge sums of money to those racist organizations to keep up and running so that the SPLC could continue to support the FALSE narrative that THEY THEMSELVES actually benefit from! As Claude Rains once said…”I’m SHOCKED! Absolutely SHOCKED!” (Sarcasm ON! I’m not shocked at all). What are your thoughts on these allegations? — “White Sheets WHITEWASH The SPLC” regards from The Emperor

This, of course, overlaps with Steve’s question this week. But yeah, if the allegations are indeed true, I think it’s absolutely terrible. I want to see what all comes out as the case moves forward. I think it’s a scandal either way, but the depth of it, I’m guessing, has yet to be seen.

Under Bernie’s Monday’s column one of the commenters claimed that Trump’s “Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” line from January 6 is what his critics claimed “sparked the violence” that day. Talk about a made-up accusation! I’m curious why didn’t comment it (you often do with that type of thing). — Alex D.

Hi Alex. I didn’t actually see that comment (or at least all of it) until I saw your question, and then I went back and checked it out. Yeah, it’s absolute nonsense, I can’t take people seriously when they play the “he said ‘peacefully’” card to dismiss Trump’s role in January 6. It’s always been a bogus excuse.

I offered my extended thoughts on this topic a while back:

In MAGA-world, that single canned utterance (written not by Trump but his speech-writer), read by the president as portions of the large crowd were already peeling off toward the Capitol, somehow discredits even the notion that Trump provoked the violence that followed. The argument is essentially that the word (which Trump consciously avoided in the buildup to that day) not only nullified every incendiary remark Trump made in that very same speech (including 20 mostly ad-libbed instances of the word “fight”), but also every inflammatory lie he had told in the weeks beforehand (about the election being stolen, our system of democracy being destroyed, and January 6 at the Capitol being the last opportunity to save the country from ruin).

Again, what was said in the previous two months (not just that day) was why thousands of angry Trump supporters ended up at the Capitol. The idea that eight weeks of provocation are rendered meaninglessness the moment the word “peaceful” is casually tossed out in the eleventh hour is absurd.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“It just goes down your stomach like a dead glass of water.”

In 1985, Coca-Cola was convinced they were unveiling the beverage of the future. They called it “New Coke,” announcing in April of that year that it would replace the original 99-year-old Coca-Cola formula.

Public reception to the change was… not good (as you’ll see in this week’s video). Millions of Americans didn’t like the taste, sparking one of the most famous consumer backlashes in marketing history.

The company would eventually switch back to the original formula (calling it “Coca-Cola Classic”), but in early June (when my report aired), they were still convinced Americans would warm up to it.

Read more

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the latest attempt on Trump’s life, heated political rhetoric, and the situation in Iran.

Show Notes:

• Bernie’s column on the attempted assassination.

• John’s 9/17/2025 column on the assignment of blame for political violence

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

The good news that came out of what happened Saturday night at the White House Correspondents Dinner is that the system worked.

The gunman, we’re told, was out to get the president and top officials of the government. He failed.

Journalists weren’t hurt, either.

A secret service agent was shot, but because he was wearing a bulletproof vest, thankfully he wasn’t badly hurt.

Law enforcement officers did their job. It obviously could have been worse. A lot worse.

The gunman — 31-year old Cole Allen from Torrance, California — graduated from Caltech in 2017 with a degree in mechanical engineering. While at Caltech, he was a member of the school’s Christian fellowship.

He traveled across the country by train — first from LA to Chicago and then on to Washington. On trains, it apparently is easy to travel with weapons. Cole reportedly had a rifle, a handgun, and several knives.

Maybe something needs to be done to beef up security before we’re allowed to get on a train.

I say it could have been a lot worse. What if the attack wasn’t carried out by a lone actor but by a sophisticated, coordinated band of terrorists that, because the system failed, weren’t detected before they got to the hotel ballroom?

Present at the dinner were not only the president, but also the vice president and top cabinet officials, more than a dozen of whom were in the line of succession to the presidency.

Maybe it’s not a good idea to have the top echelons of our government in the same place at the same time.

But there’s something else that needs our attention: hateful rhetorical bombs that are all too commonplace, especially on social media where you can make a fortune spewing venom. Eventually, the sludge makes its way from social media posts and podcasts into the nation’s bloodstream.

If the president’s critics compare him to Hitler long enough and contend that he’s a racist who’s out to destroy American democracy … is it crazy to think that all of that might make its way from media platforms into the mind of a man who was once named “teacher of the month”?

A man with a gun apparently heard enough bad things about Charlie Kirk that he went to one of his rallies, took aim, and killed him.

“Kirk’s assassination followed numerous recent instances of political violence,” according to one news report. “In 2025 alone, Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot; an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence with Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family inside; an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was shot and injured outside a detention facility in Texas; the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters was set on fire; and a shooter attacked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters.”

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist at Georgetown University says that, “Americans are quick to excuse actions and speech that were once taboo. Luigi Mangione, charged in the killing of United HealthCare executive Brian Thompson, has become ‘a folk hero.’” Somebody made a musical about Mangione — and shows were sold out.

On college campuses, protestors fly flags of terrorist organizations. Hamas is even celebrated.

We live in hyper-polarized times. Too often we don’t simply disagree with the other side, we detest the other side. And when we see the other side as “the enemy” it’s easy to turn the enemy into a target.

A while back, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all seen as somebody’s enemy. They were all targets.

We might be able to do something about security at train stations … and we might change protocols to insure that the top levels of government don’t congregate in the same place, making them potential targets for terrorists who want to bring down our government.

But how are we going to fix the hate that has moved from the fringes to the mainstream?

The good news from Saturday night, as I say, is that the system worked. This time. Maybe not the next time.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Alan Dershowitz has a column this week in the Wall Street Journal where he reveals that he has joined the Republican Party and will actively contribute and campaign for Republican candidates. The main reason for this change is the Democratic Party's radical anti-Israel shift. Dershowitz's quote: "The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history." You and Bernie have been very public about your becoming independent as neither a registered Republican nor Democrat. Was Dershowitz's political conversion surprising to you? — Steve R.

No, I wasn’t surprised. I actually half-thought he had already joined the Republican Party (like Tulsi Gabbard and other high-profile lefties). I knew he had left the Democratic Party a while back (apparently multiple times). It’s certainly possible that he joined the GOP precisely for the reason he stated, even with corridors of the Right going through its own anti-Israel binge (though not so much in Republican leadership, which is an important difference).

Personally, in this political era, I find neither of our major political parties appealing. I can, however, think of two entirely logical reasons for wanting to be in one: 1) If your state requires a party-affiliation to vote in the primaries (mine doesn’t); 2) If you plan on running for office (I don’t).

Sir John — apparently Air Force Major-General William Neil McCasland has mysteriously disappeared after leaving his New Mexico home and taking his gun with him. This silver alert could easily be a simple tragedy, except that several other scientists who either worked under him or had some other type of connection to his work (which included UFO research) have also either vanished or died mysteriously, one of which was murdered. Barack Obama AND Donald Trump have both made some tantalizing remarks recently about otherworldly aliens as well. Alien Abductions!? Foreign enemy assassins!? A secret cabal!? The Men In Black!? In all seriousness, I know you think I indulge in conspiracies too much, but one has to admit that there sure are some odd coincidences occurring recently. (Speaking of which, You live in Colorado; what secrets are hidden beneath that airport,, and have you ever seen that spooky cursed statue of the horse known as “Bluecifer” in your travels? What’s going on here, Sir John? Enquiring Minds Want To Know —“Area 51” Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story closely enough to offer much insight on it, Emperor. In fact, if not for my wife mentioning it to me last week (she learned about these mysterious disappearances and deaths from her newsfeed), today would have been the first time I’d even heard about any of them. From what little I know, it’s certainly unusual, but I have no theories or conclusions to present you with.

As for Blucifer, yes, I see him often — every time I go to Denver International Airport. He’s large, in charge, and displayed prominently out front (on the drive in).

Blucifer has been a fun topic and cultural landmark for us Coloradans for several years now. He was an interesting art choice (for the very art-centric DIA), but what makes him even more notable is that he actually killed his sculptor before he was completed (by falling on him).

Blucifer is a hit with tourists (though you can’t really get your picture with him), and my wife and I got a kick out of him making an appearance on this season’s “Paradise.”

Represent!

I'm all in on a 10% tariff all around. Congress should approve this and dedicate it to the elephant in the room which is our national debt. I would also like to see an overall spending cut of 10% with the only exception to defense. I would like to see an annual decrease in spending of 5% to NATO with a five-year sunset clause. Minnesota fraud continues to be uncovered by independent reporters and covered up by mainstream reporters. The left has found a way to redistribute our federal tax dollars. Simple fiscal policies could rid our debt in 20 years. Unfortunately, it will never happen and to our grandchildren I ask forgiveness for the crash that will occur in their lifetime. — Tim H.

Tim, I certainly agree with you on that very last part. What we’ve done to our grandchildren, by letting our national debt explode well beyond our control, is unforgivable. Both parties have chased the fiscally-literate leaders out of office, and largely replaced them with grifters and clowns who are awesome at parroting talking points and sharing internet memes, but couldn’t care less about the most serious challenge we face as a nation.

I disagree with a mandatory 10% tariff. As we’ve learned, tariffs are a very inefficient, costly, and regressive way of raising tax revenue. Plus, they wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt. At this point, unfortunately, higher taxes will have to play a role in dealing with the issue, but tariffs aren’t the answer. There are far less damaging forms of taxation.

Of course, the major drivers of our national debt remain our major entitlement programs. They’re in desperate-desperate-desperate need of reform (and have been for many years). We can’t get anywhere at all on this issue without making serious changes to them.

On other spending, I would absolutely welcome a 10% federal cut across the board. Sun-setting NATO would be a terrible decision (for reasons I’ll probably get into in a future column). Fraud should be aggressively targeted and eliminated (and the fraudsters prosecuted). Unfortunately, even if you eliminate all government fraud, that wouldn’t put a dent in our debt either.

Ukraine’s going to win this thing, isn’t it? — Alex D.

Alex, I’m more confident of that now than I’ve ever been. Their home-grown drone technology (along with the Ukrainians’ amazing courage and resilience) has been an absolute game-changer for them. They’re steadily taking back territory, depleting the Russian forces, and securing new alliances and funding. It is to our country’s deep shame that we largely abandoned them, and have kept trying to tip the scales in favor of Putin, while they were (and still are) on the front line of defending the free world.

I wish the Ukrainians continued success, and eventual triumph.

Ok I know you have replied to an earlier question about Trump vs. Pope Leo, so this is more about the possible political ramifications. Do you actually think there will be any? Or is this just another “mean Tweet” that will be forgotten by next month.

BTW although many pundits have described this as a “tiff” or even a “fight” between them, seems so far it’s Trump who is swinging most of the online punches.

Most of the Pope’s public comments on the folly of war, the evils of politicians weaponizing religion, etc., are just what modern Popes tend to say, and really don’t come across as aimed at Trump personally, although I am sure they weren’t excluding him, either.

Anyway, at first I didn’t think this would affect Trump’s popularity at all. But I did see a recent poll indicating a drop in his support among Catholics, and even some non Catholic Christians, say that Trump’s recent blasphemous posts are the last straw, etc.

But Trump isn’t running again (and no I don’t agree with people already assuming he will figure out a way to run again in 2028). And when it comes to the midterms, I doubt this will matter much, unless Iran goes totally pear-shaped (like, Trump orders a mass ground invasion, and hundreds of American soldiers die, or get captured and set up Iran Hostage Crisis Part 2), but that would be much more about the Iran issue itself, than what the Pope said about it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I do not believe there will be any Pope-related political ramifications for Trump. The president’s Christian supporters have long exempted him from their moral standards (on everything from philandering to autographing Bibles for $1,000 a pop). Thus, I don’t expect that to suddenly change based on this. You’re right in that this dust-up (or whatever it is) has been one-sided (well, kind of). The Pope has been weighing in on policies and cultural issues (some are related to Trump), while Trump’s been going at The Pope individually for doing so. I think Trump’s worsening poll numbers (among all groups at this point) are more related to other things, like Iran, the economy, ICE, and general Trump-fatigue.

How much online hatred did you get from posting that picture of you and David French? — Ben G.

Ha! Surprisingly little, Ben. If David had retweeted it, I’m sure I would have received all kinds of unhinged responses, as I have in the past (since a lot of people hate-follow him).

I’ve interviewed David a number of times, and saw him speak at an event a year or so ago, but this was the first time I’d met him in-person. Nice guy. He and his Advisory Opinions podcast co-host, Sarah Isgur, were doing a live event at the University of Denver. So, I figured I’d drive down and say hi. I’m glad I did.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“Too often ‘winning’ really means winning at any cost.”

In October of 1985, I did a two-part series for the CBS Evening News called “When the Cheering Stops.” It covered college sports scandals… including that of athletes never learning the non-sports professional skills that college should have taught them. The result was a knowledge deficit that held them back in life.

Both parts are included in this week’s video.

Read more