Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much these days — on hardly anything, actually. If one side says it raining, the other side says let’s go to the beach — and don’t forget the sunscreen.

But now the two sides have finally found common ground.

It’s Donald Trump’s preliminary deal with Iran — the MOU … the memorandum of understanding.

Virtually every Democrat — and a sizable chunk of Trump’s base — seem to agree on one thing: the deal stinks.

Think about that for a moment. The Mullahs in Tehran have accomplished what no American politician could. They’ve brought Democrats and Republicans together.

Who would’ve thought Iran would become the great unifier?

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John: Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used to feel the need to deny being socialists, but now blatant socialism is having its day, at least in deep blue coastal areas like NYC, Seattle, LA, and Oregon. What is causing this? Is it indoctrination in early education, the extreme wealth of people like Elon Musk (the world's first trillionaire), a misunderstanding of how wealth is created and shared, or just old-fashioned envy that has been part of the human condition since Cain & Abel? It can't be because true socialism (government owning major resources, industry, and the means of production) actually works. —Steve R.

Though I think Obama and Clinton still personally resist the “socialist” label, you’re right, Steve, in that it’s no longer a dirty word in the Democratic Party. I think at least a couple of theories you listed are correct. I don’t believe it’s so much indoctrination as it is a cultural sentiment among young people. Many of them feel the cards are stacked against them — professionally, financially, and even socially. Thus, politicians promising to take stuff from well-off people, and give it to them (to supposedly even the playing field), strikes a chord. And yes, that sentiment fuels jealousy and resentment, and dilutes these people’s understanding of basic economics.

As you know, Steve, socialism fails whenever it is tried. And yet, both parties have adopted tenets of socialism, even if they don’t actually use the word.

I’ve been enjoying your vacation photos on X, so I’m not sure if you’re around and answering questions this week. If you are, did you catch JD Vance’s comments on downplaying Nixon’s corruption, saying that today it would “be like a 12 hours news story,” and not take down a presidency? If so what do you think? — Alex D.

Hi Alex. My wife and I are still enjoying Wyoming’s national parks (I’ll post a couple pictures at the bottom), but I decided to go ahead and make time for the Q&A this week anyway. I did catch Vance’s comments about Watergate being a 12-hour news story by today’s standards, and I think he’s right… but for the wrong reason. It’s not that Watergate wasn’t a serious act of political corruption. It was. The problem is that by today’s standards of presidential corruption, under Trump, what Nixon did seems almost trivial.

That’s not a good trajectory for the country.

Greetings Sir John — The liberal Jewish left wing Democrat Dan Goldman was refused service at the Poetica Coffee Shop in Brooklyn because of his stance on Israel. I would be interested to know how he felt about Christian bakers getting sued for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant because of her association with the Trump Administration, as well as Maxine Waters telling people to harass MAGA folks in public to let them know that “they are not welcome” there. I disagree with the Poetica Coffee Shop but I suppose they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, although it sounds like that could conflict with Civil Rights laws. What are your thoughts on the Poetica Coffee shop incident as well as the apparent hypocrisy of some Democrats when the chickens come home to roost & have a latte’? — “When The Shoe On The Other LEFT Foot” regards from The Emperor

As best I can tell, Emperor, Goldman never said anything about the Christian baker, or Sarah Huckabee Sanders being refused service, so I’m not sure there’s any hypocrisy on his part. As for the coffee shop, I don’t think they did anything illegal. It would only be a civil rights violation if the discrimination was along the lines of Goldman’s race, color, religion, or national origin. That said, I think what the coffee shop did was sad and unfortunate. I think it’s quite petty to treat someone like that just based on political differences.

Have you been following Hegseth’s latest firings of generals? It seems like all he does is fire highly competent, well-admired people. What’s with this guy? — Ben G.

Being on the road this week, I haven’t put much focus on the latest round of firings, Ben. But it really does seem as though Hegseth is hell-bent on purging top U.S. military leaders (I believe over 20 now) for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance or capability, at a time when America is involved in lots military operations. Based on his track record, I have no reason to believe there’s any wisdom behind it.

So long from Wyoming!

Share

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

“The eye of the storm is nearing Texas.”

In September of 1988, our regularly scheduled episode of 48 Hours had to be put on hold to cover a deadly Category 5 hurricane that was barreling its way toward the United States. Hurricane Gilbert caused havoc in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico for almost a week and a half, ultimately killing 318 people and causing almost $3 billion in damages along its path.

I uncharacteristically played the role of weatherman from the National Hurricane Center in Coral Gables, Florida, doing my best to keep CBS’s audience up-to-date on the latest developments.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at President Trump’s midterm prospects, and how his ego isn’t helping the situation.

Share

Read more

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

If you want to know just how unprincipled — and how unabashedly hypocritical — politicians and their supporters can be, consider how Democrats would respond if Graham Platner were a Republican.

Platner, the Maine Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, has spent weeks answering questions about his past. By now, you probably know at least some of the story. During what he describes as a dark period in his life after military service, he had a Nazi tattoo emblazoned on his chest — for nearly two decades. He has acknowledged inappropriate relationships with women. He has made insulting comments about military heroes and said things about Black Americans that, at the very least, demonstrated remarkably poor judgment.

Now ask yourself a simple question: What would Democrats be saying if Graham Platner were a Republican?

Would they call him a Nazi? Of course they would. Democrats routinely compare Donald Trump to Nazis, and Trump never had a Totenkopf tattoo on his body. They would call him a misogynist, a racist, and a walking example of toxic masculinity. Cable news panels would discuss his unfitness for office. Editorial writers would write about how he represented a threat to American values.

Maybe some of those criticisms would be justified. That’s not the point.

The point is that more than 70 percent of Democratic primary voters in Maine chose Platner to be their party’s Senate nominee. They had alternatives. They knew the controversies. And they voted for him anyway.

That’s their right. In a democracy, voters get to make their own choices.

But once they do, they lose some credibility when they lecture Republicans about character.

Consider Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who recently defeated longtime Senator John Cornyn to become the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate.

Paxton could open up a Samsonite outlet store with all the baggage he’s accumulated. Over the years he has faced allegations involving bribery, infidelity, fraud, and abuse of office. He was indicted on felony securities-fraud charges and later impeached by the Texas House, only to survive conviction in the state Senate.

Yet Republican voters chose him anyway — over a decent, arguably more qualified man who said he voted for Donald Trump 99 percent of the time — but apparently wasn’t sufficiently loyal to the president.

Which means that Republicans who support Paxton have a difficult time arguing that Graham Platner is unfit for public office. And Democrats who support Platner have a difficult time arguing that Paxton’s ethical problems should automatically disqualify him.

What we’re seeing is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. It’s an American political problem.

And like so many political developments over the last decade, it leads us back to — yes — Donald Trump.

Not because Trump invented hypocrisy. Politicians were hypocrites long before Donald Trump rode down the escalator. But Trump accelerated a trend that was already underway. He proved that large numbers of voters were willing to overlook almost anything if they believed their candidate would fight hard enough against the other side.

As New York Times columnist David French recently observed, “Trump’s influence has spread beyond Trump’s base. By lowering the bar of acceptable behavior below the floor of normal decency, he’s made a mockery of the idea that character matters in politics. What value is there in being a virtual loser?”

So why should Democrats in Maine hold their candidate to a higher standard? Why should Republicans in Texas? Why should either side voluntarily disarm when the other team clearly isn’t planning to?

The result is a political culture in which really, really bad behavior is no longer disqualifying. It’s merely inconvenient. Character flaws aren’t reasons to reject a candidate; they’re talking points to be explained away. Every scandal comes with a ready-made defense: What about your side? You don’t have clean hands so why should we?

And that brings us to the people who get off easiest in these discussions: the voters.

Politicians respond to incentives. If voters reward bad behavior, politicians will continue behaving badly. That’s not cynicism; it’s human nature.

Too often, voters act like what used to matter no longer matters. Integrity? Honesty? Decency? Those are nice qualities, but they’re apparently optional. What really matters is defeating the other side. Winning has become the highest political virtue.

In Watergate days, prosecutors used the phrase “un-indicted co-conspirator.” In today’s politics, that description sometimes fits the electorate, the voters who we’re not supposed to blame because, you know, they’re just ordinary Americans — and no one wants to take pot shots at ordinary Americans.

We complain about the quality of our leaders while repeatedly rewarding the very conduct we claim to despise.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but when we tolerate bad behavior, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get more of it.

The truth is that politicians didn’t lower the standards by themselves. They had help — from us. We excused, rationalized, overlooked, and defended. We decided that character mattered right up until the moment it became inconvenient.

Which is why that famous line from Pogo remains as relevant today as when it was first written:

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

The uncomfortable part is that Pogo wasn’t talking about Democrats or Republicans. He wasn’t talking about Graham Platner or Ken Paxton — or Donald Trump.

He was talking about … us.

Share

Hi everyone.

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

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

Sir John—I’m hearing about an alleged plot by some anti-Trump fanatics to conduct a drone attack during the UFC Fight at the White House. Your thoughts? —“Tapped Out” regard from The Emperor

I think the plot was probably more serious that the baseline media coverage of it would suggest, Emperor. Though the plot was foiled in the planning stage, some of the (at least) five plotters involved were serious, committed people. Thankfully, law enforcement acted quickly on a tip by a teenage suspect’s mother. Who knows how close the crew would have otherwise gotten to actually harming and/or killing attendees. I’m sure the event was very secure, but with drone attacks, you never know what can slip through.

Just one more note: From what I’ve read, the plotters were less motivated by feelings for Trump than they were an anti-government ideology. Not that that matters in the context of the planned violence itself.

Unlike 99% of the Democrats, you—a conservative—supported the Iran War (Donald Trump’s policy, despite you disliking Trump). But this week, after you criticized the Trump administration for how they’re working on ending the war (largely in the Iranian regime’s favor) you were accused of parroting Hakeem Jeffries’ “talking points.” WTF? — Alex D.

That’s a comment section for you, Alex: people saying really strange things.

What you’re describing is reflexive partisanship. Those on the Right who suffer from it consider any and all criticisms of Donald Trump to be leftist. Sufferers on the Left consider any and all alignments with Trump to be ultra-MAGA. In reality, principled positions transcend partisan interests.

This [photo below] is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. It’s real! Your thoughts, sir? — Ben G.

Oh, it’s absolutely fantastic, Ben! It’s no secret that the Obamas and Bidens don’t like each other, but Obama (or at least his social-media person) consciously excluding the Bidens from his expressed affection and admiration for the other First Families is comedy gold.

As an example of lasting impact, more than a decade ago president Obama's High Tech Act created Electronic Healthcare Records. EHR created negative and lasting impact on the health care industry. You have accused Trump of action with lasting negative consequences. Can you be specific about a Trump action that will have negative impact a decade from now? — Al

Just one, Al? I could go down a number of avenues here, including the tremendous damage he’s needlessly caused with longstanding foreign allies, key security alliances, and previously reliable trade partners (while bending over backwards to appease Putin and other sworn enemies of America). There’s also the national distrust he has aggressively stoked in our major institutions — including our very system of democracy — for purely self-serving reasons. That stuff alone will require years of repair, assuming they even can be repaired by future presidents and/or congresses.

But if you want one negative consequence of President Trump that I’m certain will have lasting effects well beyond ten years from now, I’ll point you to the national debt and entitlements.

During the Obama years, conservatives understood that our surging national debt, driven mainly by our broken entitlement programs, was a looming catastrophe. Following George W. Bush’s failed reform efforts a few years earlier, Paul Ryan and other GOP leaders passed multiple House entitlement-reform bills (later studies showed that any of those plans would have worked). Those efforts died, however, under a Democratic president and Senate. After Republicans won full control in 2016, and had their best opportunity to finally address the situation, Trump adopted the Democrats’ position of blocking all major-entitlement reforms, vowing a veto-threat and political retribution for any Republican who presented one. He then accelerated spending (outpacing Obama even before the pandemic), signed into law several trillion more in debt (he’s added more than any president by far), and continues to keep major entitlement-reforms off the table, even with Republicans controlling everything again. The national debt is now racing toward $40 trillion, and Social Security is projected to become insolvent in just six years.

Both parties, of course, own this catastrophe. But Trump’s party-wide imposed surrender of the issue to the Democrats — now twice at times when the supposed “fiscally conservative” party controlled everything — has squandered our ability to fix it, and has guaranteed immense fiscal pain for our country, my kids, and my future grandkids.

John-- Do you, as I do, foresee the Iranian Guard still continue attacking at will as they "have their own agenda" separate from the Iranian politicians who are supposedly negotiating with our government? If a so-called deal evolves, the Guard still continues to be active, carry much hatred, and took vows to forever attack. — Sharon H.

There have of course been some big developments, Sharon, since you asked this question. The Trump administration has made huge, Obama-esque concessions to the Iranian regime, from which I can only assume the regime will sort themselves out, reorganize, and get back to regular working order.

John, I just read where JD Vance is going on the View. He’s been on ABC and NBC as well. I’ve also seen Trump on CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN. Obviously partisan political anti Trump Networks. Conversely, Why did Biden never go on Fox News. And for that matter, Harris, Schumer, Pelosi, etc… I’m an Independent, so I favor neither Party. Facing live, tough, political questions, to me, is a part of leadership. And it shows voters a candidate can defend their policies under opposition media scrutiny. And Both Trump and Biden bring that on themselves. And especially Trump with all his theatrics. But all politicians do. Thanks for all you and Bernie do. — Rob O.

Broadly speaking, the Trump administration has made itself pretty accessible to the media (except for the Pentagon) — certainly more so than most administrations. That’s to their credit, and — as you describe — it can also be of benefit to both political leaders and the country. I think more Democrats should indeed talk to right-of-center media outlets.

It should be noted that JD Vance’s appearance on The View was a little different, in that he was promoting his new book. From what I understand, going on The View is great for book sales (even when the hosts don’t like the author or his/her views). The same was true of The Daily Show, back when Jon Stewart hosted it. It’s about exposure. Thus, publishing companies and agents put pressure on their authors to go on such potentially hostile shows. In other words, these particular appearances are less about leadership, and more about making money.

John: What is your reaction to this cease-fire deal Trump just signed with Iran? — Steve R.

You sent this question, Steve, before my column on the topic went out. Here it is.

Bernie & John. Great podcast, as always. You might be the only sane persons politically in America today. To his eternal disgrace, Trump, who has the emotional intelligence of a ten-year old, one day smears the democratically-elected leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as a "f-----g idiot' and the next day professes his "respect" for the new Ayatollah in Iran (or the wounded son of the last one). While the Democratic Party has become the Antisemitic Party. Disgusting. Where are people like me and your listeners supposed to go politically? Bernie in 2028? Or if not Bernie, John? All you need is a hat to throw into the ring. — Jay B.

Thanks Jay. The good news (for everyone) is that I’m certain there are still sane people in our country besides Bernie and me. Lol. Truth be told, most Americans are pretty normal folks. But the most politically engaged among us also tend to be the most politically radicalized, which has led to both parties getting behind some really bad candidates and representatives over the last several years.

Since the spring of 2016, I’ve been an independent (non-party affiliated) voter, but I still get to vote in Republican primaries here in Colorado, which I always do. I support fit candidates, and withhold my vote from unfit ones. I do think there’s going to be an opportunity, after Trump leaves office, for Republican leaders to help rebuild the conservative movement, and give us some viable candidates (including presidential candidates) that people like you and I can feel comfortable voting for.

Fingers crossed.

Share

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

JD Vance is having quite a moment. He’s in the middle of what will likely be his most public week as vice president. While working the national media circuit to promote his new book, he’s been on the front line of having to answer for what many critics, and high-profile Trump supporters alike, are describing as a historic American surrender to the Iranian regime.

I’m talking, of course, about the (now signed) US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) he helped “negotiate” to end the Iran War. Following months of military dominance over the regime, and wiping out many of its leaders, the Trump administration shocked the world this week by rewarding the Iranians with previously unthinkable concessions. Those concessions include allowing the Iranians to keep their nuclear program, as well as their ballistic missiles program. Its permits them to continue funding their terror proxies. It lifts sanctions against them, and ends Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon (despite Israel not being party to the deal). It also gives the regime hundreds of billions of dollars.

What we get in return is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (which was open before Trump started dropping bombs in February), and — in the mold of former president Barack Obama’s failed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — a gentleman’s agreement that Iran won’t build nuclear bombs.

Good luck with that.

Vance has seemed weirdly unfazed by our nation’s humiliation on the world stage, enjoying some good laughs on podcasts and cable news shows. Maybe he’s just excited about his book. Or maybe it’s because ending the war — even at the expense of our national honor, our national security, and the security of our allies — lines up well with his well-documented nationalist beliefs. Heck, it could even be that he just likes going out in front of the cameras, and assigning a bunch of outrageous, made-up positions and beliefs to fictional critics.

After falsely insisting earlier in the week that accurate details leaked on the MOU were Iranian propaganda, Vance went on Megyn Kelly’s show, repeated the lie, and addressed those (including longtime Trump allies) who supported and have defended the president’s decision to go to war, but are now in dismay of the administration caving to Iran’s demands.

Vance claimed those individuals “don’t have an alternative,” and that “they’re proposing an endless conflict.” He said they “want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead.”

That, of course, is nonsense. Aside from a number of alternatives having been presented to end the stalemate situation with the Strait of Hormuz and broader Iran War, the only person of note who suggested the death of every Iranian was President Trump himself.

“Not since Obama has a politician been this adept at destroying strawmen and misrepresenting his opponents' position,” the Washington Examiner’s David Harsanyi responded to Vance. “Most ‘hawks’ want the Iranians to be alive and free rather than under the boot of the Islamist regime [Vance’s] so chummy with. It's his capitulation that creates ‘endless’ conflict.”

President Trump has since publicly defended the MOU as well, making a number of hair-raising comments about the agreement from the G7 Summit (flanked by a giddy Howard Lutnick and a dead-inside-looking Marco Rubio). These terrible concessions ultimately fall on Trump, of course. He’s the leader of the administration and the president of the United States. But one has to wonder if some joking around the president did during his G7 press conference was a foreshadowing of things to come.

“If [the Iran deal] works out, I'm going to take the credit,” said Trump. “If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD. You better be careful, JD… Yeah, I like that idea. I think it's a good idea.”

The line got its intended laughter, but as economist and author, David L. Bahnsen, commented, “In what world could any just modestly intelligent person not believe this is actually 100% true?”

Others, including commentator Emily Zanotti, see a similar benefit to Trump in making Vance the face of this deal. Posting on X, Zanotti wrote, “The funny thing is, I think the WH is sending JD out because he’s about to get stabbed in the back. The Trump Admin has gone a little too long without sending a lamb to slaughter, and I’m not sure JD here realizes he’s in the chute.”

She may well be right, including the part about Vance being oblivious to how poorly he comes across in all of this. It’s no secret that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been outshining Vance in recent months, including catching up to the vice president in 2028 GOP presidential preference polls. And as we saw in his first term, Trump is more than happy to throw his vice president under the bus once his usefulness has expired.

The Dispatch’s Nick Catoggio has a bit different take. He thinks Vance actually relishes this opportunity to get on the “right side” of a war that most Americans had opposed from the beginning, perhaps having made the calculation that it will help him politically come 2028. That may indeed be Vance’s calculus, but if it is, I’m not sure it makes him any less hapless than Zanotti suggested.

It’s hard to imagine that even an outspoken non-interventionist type like JD Vance could successfully distance himself from the war decisions of an administration he’s a top member of. Not to mention that the vast majority of Republican voters, who Vance would need to woe in the 2028 primary, supported the Iran War. There’s also the question of how much trouble Iran will be stirring up two years from now, as a result of our retreat.

As many may remember, most Americans also wanted us out of Afghanistan. They wanted that war over. That’s why both President Trump and President Biden felt comfortable working toward that objective, and bringing the war to an official end. But once the U.S. did withdrawal, under Biden, and Americans witnessed the horrific (albeit widely predicted) results of that withdrawal, Biden’s approval ratings tanked and never recovered.

Most Americans dislike war and military intervention abroad, but they also don’t like our country being humiliated on the world stage… especially by terrorists.

Whether Vance realizes or cares about it, he’s currently the face of that humiliation. And he seems right at home in the role.

Share

“Everyone seems convinced that his side is right and other side is wrong.”

In early 1988, I traveled to Israel for a 48 Hours piece on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories (the West Bank and the Gaza strip).

The episode itself is hard to track down, but Dan Rather had me on the CBS Evening News to promote the episode.

Read more

Today we’re doing something a little different. Reagan Caucus Action has given us permission to air a recent interview they did with Bernie on the 25th anniversary of his iconic book, “Bias.” We hope you enjoy it!

Show Notes:

• Reagan Caucus Action

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

We’re just a few weeks away from July 4th — a day that marks 250 years of American independence. Think about that for a moment. Two hundred and fifty years. That’s a remarkable milestone for any nation, but especially for one that began as a risky experiment in self-government.

It should be a time for celebration. A time, no matter how brief, to set our differences aside and come together — not as Democrats or Republicans, not as liberals or conservatives, but simply as Americans.

So why do I think it won’t be that easy?

Because somewhere along the way, we stopped merely disagreeing with one another and started seeing one another as enemies.

Read more

I must confess that I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to the Los Angeles mayoral primary race. I know that social media, cable news, and TMZ were all very excited about it (in large part because of the waves made by former reality-TV star, Spencer Pratt), but as a Coloradan who never thought for a second that a Republican stood a chance of winning over one of the bluest districts in the country, I just couldn’t bring myself to care all that much.

What did kind of pique my interest, however, was the Pratt campaign’s heavy reliance on artificial-intelligence videos, which were hailed as strokes of genius by political analysts and politicians alike. To be clear, most of the videos were created by individuals or organizations outside of the campaign, but Team Pratt shared them on their social media accounts, and it didn’t take long for a number of them to go viral.

At least one depicted Los Angeles as a literal Hell on Earth, on fire and overtaken by druggies and homeless people — much to the delight of local Democratic politicians including Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and Pratt’s primary opponent, incumbent mayor Karen Bass. Each was portrayed as a sinister super-villain, with Pratt himself donning a Batman getup, and boldly descending on the scene to save the day (while cheered on by the likes of Joe Rogan and Marco Rubio).

The videos generated millions of views, and got Pratt (and his campaign) more attention than he otherwise would have received. Since they were created with AI, they were relatively inexpensive to make, and the satire assuredly channeled real-life frustrations of lots of people in L.A.

Though Pratt lost the primary (as expected), he did outperform his polling, and it’s hard to argue that the videos weren’t one of the reasons. I expect AI videos and other imagery to play a much more significant role in our politics going forward.

But I must say that the videos made me a little queasy. I found it unsettling watching real people — elected public officials — realistically animated, without their consent, into saying and doing degrading things they haven’t actually said or done.

I felt the same way when I saw this AI video on social-media a couple months ago, satirizing an instance of President Trump drifting off during an Oval Office meeting:

Now, to be clear, when I say “realistically,” I’m not suggesting that anyone watching these particular videos were fooled into believing they’re authentic. They’re obviously way too over-the-top for that, as are the ones you’ve all assuredly seen online from outside of the political world, like Hollywood celebrities sitting down besides their younger selves, or appearing in classic film or television scenes they were never in.

I don’t really like those either, but I don’t find them as unnerving as with elected officials who make consequential public decisions on behalf of up to millions of people in this country. Entertainment value is one thing, but in an era already overflowing with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and alternative realities, I shudder to think of how much worse cheap, easy-to-use AI technology could make our politics.

I worry about the ramifications of shady campaign arms and other bad actors (including from outside the country) almost effortlessly producing and widely distributing increasingly convincing footage, on a wide scale, that further distorts and degrades Americans’ understanding of how they’re being led, and the decisions those leaders are making.

It doesn’t help that very few of our leaders seem to have an adequate grasp, themselves, of the rapid growth of AI and its future implications. Heck, I come from an I.T. background, I’ve read a lot about AI, and I’ve personally talked at length with notable AI researchers… and I still feel very far behind the curve on this issue (as I’m sure most people do).

As with other game-changing technologies, AI is destined to become massively integrated with our society — to an extent most people can’t even envision yet. In the grand scheme of things, political influence may well end up being one of the more trivial hurdles (I personally worry more about AI’s effect on the workforce and national security).

But as a close political observer who’s already seen and lamented the immense damage this post-truth era has caused to our institutions and citizens’ understanding of government, I’m unfortunately not convinced AI won’t make the situation even worse.

Share

I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Hi everyone.

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

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

It seems to me that Victor Davis Hanson (a pretty smart guy) would have everyone dismiss obvious Trump self-serving character and personality flaws and use of public office for personal enrichment and revenge as mostly inconsequential when weighted against his policies and achievements. The office of POTUS is important to our people, our nation and the world well beyond the measure of policies, facts and figures. I believe a critique of all aspects of a presidents behavior, deportment, civility is justified. Should not we expect, even demand, our president be the best of what we hope a Lady or Gentleman should be at all times, at all places, in all circumstances? — Scott K.

I agree with your thoughts on what a president should be, Scott, but I’ve always been willing to except lower than the highest bar you describe. I’m fine dismissing a number of things in the grand scheme of evaluating a presidency, but Trump has committed so many harmful, corrupt, and unpatriotic acts as president (many of them highly consequential) that one has to almost be in clinical denial of them (as in genuinely convincing themself they never even happened) in order to authentically arrive at the mindset you describe. And I think it’s clear that a lot of people have conditioned themselves to do just that.

As I described last week, Hanson goes a little further in his analysis. He seems inclined (whether for personal or professional reasons) to formulate an intellectual or ideological rationale for pretty much anything Trump does (when there often isn’t one beyond that of Trump’s own self-interest).

So regarding the latest allegations about Platner, of course his defenders are making hay out of the political affiliations of Lyndsey Fifield, and are trying to brush off the accusations as just another political hit job.

Unfortunately, I know many people (including women) whose default response to any accusations of DV or SA against politicians is, “I assume they’re all lies, they don’t affect my voting decisions at all, it’s just too easy for a political operative to find some floozy willing to make up a He Said She Said story”.

Others, of course, have the same skeptical attitude towards allegations against their political allies, but are quick to assume the worst of their political opponents.

So what would you say are your own standards for judging whether such allegations are credible? — Alyene W.

Hi Aylene. I wrote a piece back in 2018 on the state of the #MeToo movement (it was during the Brett Kavanaugh controversy), that I think holds some relevance to your question. My broad point in it was that the truth, not simply the accusation (and certainly not political expediency), should be everyone’s priority. And as Ramesh Ponnuru recently wrote, Lyndsey Fifield has A LOT of truth on her side that backs up her claims. It’s also worth noting that even ex-girlfriends of Platner who agree with him politically have horrific stories to tell of his behavior. I think he’s a very bad and disturbed guy who’s clearly unfit for office. Those who rationalize his candidacy do so to their own discredit.

I could only laugh at the story (which I believe) of J.D. Vance proposing the idea of asking Tucker Carlson to interview Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, so that she could serve as a character witness for Donald Trump. How did the administration even get itself here? It’s like watching a never ending dark comedy. — Ben G.

Since I’ve already commented more on this topic than I ever wanted to, Ben, I’ll try and keep my answer relatively short. From the beginning, this insane political controversy was entirely of MAGA’s own making. People in Trump’s orbit (including Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and I think even Vance himself) made this a campaign issue in 2024, arguing that Americans needed Trump back in office to blow the lid off the “Epstein Files.” For whatever reason, none of these people bothered to consider, at the time, that Donald Trump was previously a friend and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, and that there’d be information in the case files that would, at minimum, embarrass Trump. Everything since then has indeed been a darkly comedic effort to protect our president from the fallout. Vance clearly had faith in his buddy, Tucker Carlson, to help whitewash the situation, on behalf of the White House, to the MAGA base. Is it laughable in its absurdity? Yes, but that’s true of a lot of things in this political era.

John: Republican politics of the day remind me of two quotes. From Jim Valvano: “Survive and advance.” From my first business mentor: “Just tell me what the game is, and I’ll play it.” I know you have expressed extreme disappointment in many Republican officials selling their souls to bow at the feet of Trump and his MAGA acolytes, but isn’t this the game they must play to survive and advance and remain in the arena of conservative public policy? I’m thinking of Marco Rubio in particular, who seems to have deftly balanced his own basic American statesmanship with the requisite gushing over his boss. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. — Steve R.

Hi Steve. You’re right that in the Trump era, completely prostrating yourself for Donald Trump (including surrendering your congressional and constitutional authority to him) is how one survives as a Republican office holder. If you don’t do that, Trump will do everything he can to end your political career. That usually means endorsing (and in some cases even drafting) a GOP primary opponent — even if that opponent can’t win in the general election (which, over the years, has led to the GOP losing a number of otherwise winnable seat to the Democrats).

I discussed this very topic with The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg earlier this week:

What I disagree with, Steve, is the notion that surrendering to Donald Trump — for the sake of personal political survival — has helped advance conservative public policy. I think it’s done the opposite. There were certainly important conservative gains early in Trump’s first term (largely thanks to Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell taking lead behind the scenes). But that was before all the “disloyalty” purging began. Conversely, today’s Republican Congress (aside from a couple lame-duck members) has sat back and let Trump dismantle conservative policies on all kinds of things: trade, spending, foreign relations, constitutional deference, the rule of law, etc.). Heck, the GOP isn’t really even a pro-life party anymore. And while we’re about to surpass $40 trillion in national debt, and Social Security is now on track to go insolvent in just six years, members of Congress are carrying on about things like the Reflection Pool, and trying to find ways of funding more of Trump’s vanity projects. It’s a joke.

To your last point: Has the Trump administration and the country benefited from having Marco Rubio (who played this horrid game to stay politically viable) as our Secretary of State? Yes. I think he’s one of the few adults in the room. But the fact that he’s just one guy (surrounded mostly by corrupt figures and incompetents), in a modern GOP that has been downright hostile toward the ideas, moral clarity, and policies he passionately defended (and espoused) up until ten years ago, illustrates just how much has been sacrificed.

John -- I personally can't see our president completing his term due to his health issues, at the same token, if we acquire a Democratic as house speaker and Trump was replaced by Vance, do you foresee a more stable Congress, or will that happen if Rubio were to be elected? I do have hope. — Sharon H.

I don’t think Trump has reached Joe Biden levels of health-concern yet, Sharon, but I understand what you’re saying. He’s 80 years old, he’s increasingly nodding off on camera, he’s saying even more erratic and scattered things than usual, and he’s apparently being checked out by lots of doctors as of late. Thus, it’s not inconceivable that, for whatever reason, he may not be able to do the job through the end of this term. (As with Joe Biden, that was a risk of electing someone of that age to such a difficult and highly consequential office).

If that happens, and JD Vance, becomes president, I do think a number of things would change — some for the better and some for the worse. I certainly think that with Vance, we’d have a more functional GOP Congress, in the respect that Republicans wouldn’t just let him do whatever crazy or corrupt thing he wants to do (the way they have with Trump). That would be a good thing. As for the Dems, I’m not sure they’d have any better of a working relationship with Vance than they’ve had with Trump. But after the midterms (regardless of who’s the president), they’ll be better positioned to oppose the executive branch, and conduct investigations into whatever they feel like investigating.

Greetings Sir John: Many Trump (and Israel) haters on the left AND the right gleefully exclaim that “TRUMP LIED” about keeping the U.S. out of war. They seem to forget that sometimes the global situation changes and that liberal icons Wilson AND FDR both made similar promises. Do YOU think Trump consciously lied about this? And what’s this nonsense from Trump continually saying that “deals” are made or are close to being made when the Iranian leaders deny it? Why doesn’t he just shut up about it and say nothing until real progress is made? And finally, I myself agree with the pundits that say as long as Trump continues extending the deadlines for the Iranian leadership to make an acceptable deal, the more his credibility on the world stage suffers, so why won’t he just give the orders to bomb Kharg Island (& any other strategic sites) or simply allow Israel and the UAE to. do the dirty work instead and free the Iranian citizens from the tyranny once & for all? This makes no sense to me. What are your thoughts on all these quandaries, Sir John? —“Deal Or No Deal” regards from The Emperor

I’ll answer one question at a time, Emperor…

Do I think Trump “consciously lied” about no new wars? No. While he lies frequently, and made all kinds of campaign promises that he was never going to deliver on (lots of politicians do that), I’m sure he had no intention of taking us to war when he was running for president in 2024. That said, he should have never made that promise. No president should ever make that promise, for the simple reason that world events can alter things, and warrant us making the tough decision to go to war. By making that promise (repeatedly), and attacking his political opponents (in both parties) as neocons and warmongers, he set himself up for the criticism he’s now receiving.

As for why Trump keeps carrying on publicly about “deals” that either don’t exist, or aren’t agreed upon, I think a lot of it is attributable to Trump just being Trump: he casually says false things that he wants to be true, and believes make him look better. And because a big part of his longtime brand is the idea that he’s a master negotiator, he’s working that angle. It weirdly still works on a lot of Americans (including Wall Street at times), but it has gotten us nowhere on Iran. You’re right, Emperor. It would be good if he just stopped talking about it until he really does have a serious, qualified deal.

Like you, I think it would be a great idea to just let Israel do their thing on Iran. Trump hasn’t wanted that, seemingly because he’s still holding out hope for a “deal” that he can brag about. I think he should reconsider that position, and take Israel up on its offer.

Share

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

“I may have just doomed a hundred people to their death.”

In January of 1988, I and the rest of the 48 Hours crew spent a couple days at Stapleton International Airport in Denver (which no longer exists). We detailed the hazards and complications of winter air-travel at the base of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains (which could get pretty chaotic).

In one of the two segments I worked on (both are included in today’s clip), I met an entertaining fellow known as the Iron Messiah.

Read more

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss Kristen Welker’s recent “Meet the Press” interview with President Trump, Scott Pelley’s firing from “60 Minutes,” Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy in Maine, and what the Democrats may do if they win back the Senate.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

You don’t have to be a political scientist with a PhD from Harvard to know that 2026 likely will be a bad year for Republicans.

Polymarket, the online betting site, gives Democrats a better than 80 percent chance of taking control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections.

So what will they do with their power?

Pushed by the left wing of their party, Democrats probably will impeach Donald Trump — for a third time. Like the two previous impeachments, he won’t be convicted in the Senate. A two-third majority is needed for that, and there simply won’t be enough votes.

What else besides impeachment might be on their agenda? How about blowing up the Supreme Court as we know it. Here’s what Hakeem Jeffries, the betting favorite to be the next Speaker Of the House, said:

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, You are easy to fundamentally agree with. But your assessment of Trump and that of Victor Davis Hansen’s is widely different and I’ve been curious about that for quite some time. Can you comment on that difference? — Al

In order to be totally fair to your question, Al, I’d have to listen to more of Hansen’s analysis of Trump than I have, as well as better familiarize myself with his political ideology (I know he’s a rightie, but he strikes me as more of a populist than the type of conservative I am).

What I will say is that on the occasions when I have caught a video clip of him talking about Trump, he seems to be doing what I’ve seen a number of other Trump-friendly commentators do: Start with their audience’s preferred conclusion (that Trump’s a genius), and then twist and shape Trump’s decisions and conduct into artificial alignment with some ideological or intellectual framework… until that conclusion is reached. It’s a form of that whole “Trump is playing 3-dimensional chess while everyone else is playing checkers” shtick. Lots of MAGA-folks love that stuff (especially when it’s presented by an articulate person with an academic background), but it almost always falls flat on its face, when Trump ends up doing or saying exactly the opposite of what those people insist he’s doing.

And when the happens, neither the commentator nor the audience ever seems to acknowledge it. They just casually move on to the next topic, and go through the same routine.

Since I view that type of analysis as highly flawed, and akin to fan service, I don’t offer or subscribe to it. Again, I’m a conservative, and I have no interest in romanticizing politicians, ignoring or avoiding hard facts, or entertaining thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories to connect with an audience.

Again, this may not be entirely fair to Hansen. What I’ve seen from him may not be representative of his broader analysis of Trump, but it’s consistent with what I have seen of him. Incidentally, I saw somewhere that Hansen is having health problems, so my best wishes go out to him.

John, I love this quote from John Cleese: “There are people just sitting there, who are deliberately waiting, for the thrill of being offended.” His quote points to how some actively look for reasons to feel outraged. Remind you of anyone(s)? — Sharon H.

It reminds me of a lot of people, Sharon. It’s a common part of our grievance culture, including our political-grievance culture.

As I read the questions sent to you, I am continually amazed at how the critics of Trump conveniently dismiss all the good he has done in favor of rudely attacking his personality. Even as you invoke his “malignant narcissistic “ methods, I read you saying deep down within yourself, “I wish that I was more like him”.

Also, democrats are bemoaning the fact that they do not have a leader has one percent the charisma and policies of Trump. They can only count on a leftist media to misguide an ignorant and apathetic populace into voting for more incompetence and anti American policies. — Craig S.

Well, there’s a lot to unpack here, Craig. I’ll take it one piece at a time.

First of all, I don’t understand your complaint that people who ask me questions “conveniently dismiss all the good Trump is done.” This is a weekly Q&A, mostly on political topics. It’s not a Donald Trump fan-appreciation page, and people don’t need to “conveniently” pretend otherwise.

Trump’s the president of the United States, and he regularly does things that are objectively worthy of criticism. When a subscriber asks me to comment on one of those things, do you expect them to begin their question with “Trump’s totally awesome, but…” or “Trump has done amazing things as president, but…”? Or do you just want them to ask me questions like, “John, Why is Trump so awesome?” If those are the types of questions YOU want to ask me, Craig, feel free to do so (I’ll respond to them). But other subscribers obviously have no obligation to, and it would be kind of weird if they did.

To your next point, you (and many other Trump loyalists) are insistent that every criticism of Trump comes down to people having a problem with his “personality.” I think that’s very wrong. Do a lot of people dislike Trump’s personality? Sure, and for good reason. But most criticisms of him are tied to tangible actions — things he’s actually done.

Now, to be clear, there’s often a connection between the two, and you brought up a good example that I’ll use: the description of him as a “malignant narcissist.” Trump is absolutely a narcissist, and not just some run-of-the-mill one (I think even you would agree with that). But if he were somehow able to separate that personality trait/disorder from his governance (aka presidential actions), it wouldn’t be nearly as big of a problem for people. Unfortunately, he’s shown that he has little capacity to do that.

Trump’s narcissism drove the “stop the steal” stuff, which ruined lives and careers, damaged people’s faith in our democracy, and led to the January 6 attack (that people are dead because of). A lot of his political retribution stuff stems from his narcissism, and his belief that he should be entitled to whatever he wants (regardless of the Constitution or rule of law). It’s behind his need to rid the Republican Party of anyone who doesn’t completely prostrate themself for him (which has driven many good people out of office). It was/is behind much of his terrible trade policy (which has made life much more expensive for Americans). And, as was brought up in last week’s Q&A, it’s behind all of these taxpayer-funded vanity projects (like putting his face on buildings, passports, park passes, $250 bills, etc), at a time when Americans’ cost of living is through the roof, and our national debt is racing toward $40 trillion.

Now to my favorite part of your comment, Craig: That “I wish that I was more like” Trump. I literally laughed out loud when I read that, in part because Bernie and I used to joke about the funny responses we’d get in the comment section, back in 2015/2016, about our criticisms of Trump being motivated by personal jealousy. And reliably, when I’d look up those specific commenters’ IP addresses (the old comment section allowed for that), they’d turn out to be foreign bots. Since I don’t think you’re a foreign bot, Craig, I’ll take the time to explain where I’m coming from on this…

I don’t envy people with poor character. I aspire to be more like people who have good character. Neither money nor power makes me want to be “more like” an individual, and there are plenty of rich and powerful people (along with non-rich and non-powerful people) who I admire a lot more than Donald Trump. You may aspire to be more like Trump, Craig, but I assure you that millions and millions of American absolutely do not.

To your last point, charisma is always a valuable asset for a politician. We saw it with Obama, and we’ve seen it with Trump. So, I’m not surprised the Dems want more charismatic leaders in their party.

John, I know you’re rooting for Susan Collins to beat Graham Platner in Maine, but what do you think are the chances that she will beat him? — Ben G.

Hi Ben. First, I think it’s worth reminding people that Platner hasn’t even won the Democratic primary yet. The primary election is next Tuesday. It’s easy to forget (since Platner’s been getting all the attention), but there are other Democratic candidates that primary voters can choose from. No one’s forcing Platner to be their nominee).

Anyway, unless Platner is pressured to drop out of the race at the last minute (due to the latest, horrific revelations), I think he’ll unfortunately win the primary. My general-election prediction is that, despite Trump’s unpopularity, Collins will win. I could end up being wrong about that, of course, but Platner’s been losing ground in the polls, and I suspect even more damning information than what we already know will come out about him between now and general-election day.

I watched your interview with Paul Miller, and I wonder if you agree with him that China will invade Taiwan in 2028. — Alex D.

Hi Alex. Miller is a highly credible foreign policy expert who worked for two presidential administrations. I am not. I do, however, listen very closely to experts like him, and I think he makes a lot of sense, including on the timing. I hope to God that doesn’t happen (and never will), but with Trump offering recent indicators that he wouldn’t have Taiwan’s back if China did invade them, it could very well happen as Miller predicted.

Sir John—This video depicts UK protesters angry over a young white man named Henry Nowak who was stabbed several times by an Indian immigrant who falsely accused Nowak of calling him racist slurs. As Nowak lay dying from his wounds, the British police handcuffed him and placed him under arrest because apparently in the UK, accusations of using racist language is a much more serious crime than stabbing somebody else over a dozen times because he said something offensive, which as it turned out, was a lie anyway. I know The UK doesn’t have free speech, but I would like your opinions on this case just the same, and do you fear that the American left would ever try and perhaps succeed in turning the USA into what the UK has become? —“Brittania Rues Its Politically Correct Bobbies” regards from The Emperor

Emperor, you left out some significant details, and misstated others.

First of all, the “Indian immigrant” was not an immigrant at all. He was a British-born man of Indian descent, named Vickrum Digwa, who was raised in the UK.

Second, Digwa didn’t simply lie about racist slurs. He also lied to police on the scene that Nowak had pursued him and physically assaulted him. Officers initially handcuffed Nowak because they thought he was an assailant (not because an accusation of racism is a more serious crime than murder). In other words, as bad as the UK is on free speech, and as valid as other criticism of the responding officers may be, this wasn’t a speech matter.

By the way, it took me about ten seconds to look up those details online, Emperor. I’m begging you to adopt a similar practice, rather than accepting what you see in short YouTube videos as the full or real story. Lots of that type of content is designed to generate clicks, not inform people of matters.

And in case anyone’s wondering what happened to Digwa, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Share

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

“It’s very degrading to a man to get put in this situation.”

In late November of 1987, I did a Thanksgiving piece on homelessness and other social struggles for the CBS Evening News. I talked to some families going through a very hard time, and I suspect the piece left many viewers at home feeling thankful for the things they had in life.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at our country’s 250th birthday, and why some don’t feel like celebrating.

Share

Read more

Unless you’re one of Donald Trump’s most loyal MAGA supporters, you know he says and does things that normal people simply don’t say and do.

A vivid example came last December. Rob Reiner was stabbed to death in his Los Angeles home — supposedly by his mentally ill son. Donald Trump couldn’t resist weighing in, suggesting Reiner was killed because he suffered from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Think about that for a second. The man is stabbed over and over again because … he didn’t like Donald Trump?

If that’s not crazy, what is?

But now the president is giving us reason to wonder whether he’s becoming even more detached from reality.

The other day, Trump floated the idea that several countries should be required — “mandatorily,” in his phrasing — to sign the Abraham Accords and make peace with Israel.

And not just Arab states. He’d like Iran to also sign. Iran! The same Iran that wants to wipe Israel out of existence. That Iran.

Trump claimed that several allies told him they “would be honored” if Iran itself were to join the accords. If Iran signs, Trump said, “it will be the most important Deal that any of these Great, but always in Conflict Countries, will ever sign. Nothing in the past, or in the future, will surpass it.”

Yes, except there’s a better chance that that my dog will file my tax returns on the same day I win the lottery.

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s brand new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

What do you make of Jill Biden saying in a new book that she was worried that her husband, President Joe, was having a stroke during his horrible debate with Trump… and yet she strongly supported him continuing his presidential campaign??? - Alex D.

I typically don’t have strong feelings about any First Lady, Alex, but I find Jill Biden contemptible.

Let me say first that I simply don’t believe what she said in her book (which I’m sure she’s already made a lot of money from). I don’t believe that she sat in the audience that night and worried that her husband was having a stroke. I believe that the man she watched on stage was the exact same version of her husband she had seen, and been around, every day, in private, for months and months.

I think she, better than anyone, understood exactly how mentally and physically compromised her husband had become. And yet, she actively encouraged him not only to remain president, but run for a second term. It was self-serving and profoundly unpatriotic.

Any chance of Republicans winning again starts with forming a Chris Christie/Adam Kinzinger/Liz Cheney wing of the party. There are more moderate Republicans in this country than those I consider on the MAGA spectrum. Hope one of them runs. —ethan

Hi Ethan. I don’t think any of those three have a future in electoral politics, at least not in the Republican party. They’re pariahs in the GOP (for standing up to Trump), and will likely remain pariahs for some time after Trump’s gone from office. It’s a shame, because all are capable, patriotic individuals. And just to touch on something else you said: I don’t consider these three “more moderate” than MAGA (unless you mean temperamentally). Ideologically, they’re much more conservative than Trump, including Christie, who’s probably the most centrist.

At this point, I think the best that people like you and I can realistically hope for is someone like Marco Rubio, who I believe is still a Reaganite at heart, but has remained politically viable in the GOP by prostrating himself for Trump.

Greetings Sir John—- a kindergarten graduation ceremony at Queen Of Apostles Catholic School in Toledo Ohio turned into a violent brawl because a family began arguing over seating arrangements. Recent other incidents (like the Tim Horton’s brawl and another at an upscale Italian restaurant in Los Angeles) makes me ask you to speculate. WHY do you think that there are so many people making utter jackasses of themselves In public, especially since currently most people should be aware that their shameful dumb ass behavior is going to be recorded and pasted all over social media? —“STOMP & Circumvent” regards from The Emperor

You’re asking me why people make embarrassing spectacles of themselves in public, Emperor? Well, a lot of it has to do with a lack of emotional control, including a heightened sense of social grievance. Sometimes bigotry is a part of it. Other people make jackasses out of themselves for attention, but I don’t think that’s typically the case when it comes to physical altercations.

Between currency, coins, federal buildings, park passes, roads, passports, etc., are you worried that the federal government is going to run out of things to plaster President Trump’s name and face on, in celebration of his greatness (all while his supporters take deep offense to you describing him as a “malignant narcissist”)? — Ben G.

Lol. Yes, I’m a little worried about that, Ben. However, I’m still holding out hope for that Statue of Liberty’s tablet being replaced with “The Art of the Deal.”

Hi John-- Are we, America, politically becoming more like Russian politics and resembling a reckless hegemony Congress can't control, or even have a say? I agree some actions were necessary,and time was of the essence, but how far can this be carried? Creative rebuttals have so far been effective, but until when? — Sharon H.

What’s clear to me, Sharon, is that Congress is surrendering more and more of its power to the executive branch. This has been a trend for some time, but it’s worse now, with this Republican-led Congress, than I’ve seen it at any point in my lifetime. Trump is governing almost entirely through executive actions, and no matter how painful or damaging his policies are (tariffs are a great example), the GOP Congress just lets him do it.

Congress is the most powerful branch of the federal government, and they are completely out to lunch on some of the most consequential federal-governing decisions being made. It’s sad and pathetic.

Share

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