The online prediction (betting) sites say Democrats will win both the House and the Senate. I’m curious who YOU think will win both branches of Congress.

Let me know in the polls below…

I’ll announce the results later this week.

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…

What do you think of the horrifyingly botched attempted execution of Christa Pike? Many death penalty opponents have used the incident as yet another reason to abolish capital punishment altogether. Personally, I think the DP can be justified in the abstract for the most horrendous crimes. I shed no tears for, say, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh. Yet, I have seen too many discrepancies in its application over the years, to think it’s being used justly in practice.

But I also get really annoyed, to say the least, when anti- DP activists go out of their way to minimize the crimes of people on death row. Pike defenders have focused on how she was only 18 when she murdered Colleen Slemmer in 1995, and how she’s “not the same person now”. Yet, they usually omit that she was actually convicted of attempted murder of another inmate in 2001, and attempted to escape in 2012.

I am personally able to say, I oppose the death penalty as it is currently being practiced, without seeing death row inmates as merely helpless victims of the state. But too many people fall into the trap of woobifying the condemned, who are mostly terrible people. And I really hate how the actual victims, of the criminals, so often get forgotten in these debates. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I’m pretty much where you are on this issue. I oppose the death penalty, but I respect the position of those who disagree. What I don’t respect is the portrayal of those on death row as victims rather than as convicts who committed a terrible crime that victimized others.

For the states that still practice the death penalty (which is their right), there should be no margin of error when it comes to executions. Executions need to be as swift and painless as possible, and of course 100% effective. As many have pointed out, we know, as a people, how to do this. Regardless of how one feels about Canada’s practice of medical euthanasia, they euthanize thousands of citizens every year (at those citizens’ request) without the kind of complications we’ve occasionally seen with prisoner executions in the United States. I’ve also seen the argument that we shouldn’t medicalize the process at all, and go back to firing squads (which Pike had actually requested but was denied, I think by law). That too would be better alternative.

The Republicans have been campaigning very hard against “socialism” for a while now, and yet, when VP Vance was asked this week what socialism actually is, he didn’t know the answer. He finally settled on something about replacing American workers with foreign workers, and boys playing in girls sports. Considering how many socialist policies the Trump administration has been pushing, while they point left and yell “socialism!” has the term become meaningless? — Alex D.

In the realm of American politics, Alex, it has indeed become meaningless.

National Review’s Phillip Klein said it well: “Vance has to redefine socialism as ‘things I oppose’ because if he defined it in terms of its actual economic philosophy, he'd agree with much of it.”

The same is true of Trump, others in the administration, and a good number of Republicans who support them.

Sir John — Ben Shapiro recently posted a video of Tucker Carlson stating basically that Germany should have won WWII and that the Allies should have surrendered. WTAF!? OK yes I knew Tucker Carlson had a few screws loose for a while, but this is utterly mind-boggling! How and what caused him to become so F—-ING WiCkED & STUPID!? Did that demonic attack that he allegedly suffered from awhile back bring on some type of demonic possession!? Seriously! How the HELL is he coming up with this excrement!? —“SUCKER CARLSON!” Regards from The Emperor

There’s been lots of speculation over what’s been behind Tucker Carlson’s descent into darkness, Emperor. Some think he’s being paid by foreign entities to spread such nonsense (of which there’s actually some evidence). Some think it’s purely for attention/engagement. Some think it comes from genuine bigotry that’s been emboldened by the excesses of this political era. I think all (or even a combination of the three) are entirely possible.

I also think it’s important to note that while Tucker has gotten worse over time, he’s been deranged like this for the better part of a decade, including when he was still at Fox News (where he pushed all kinds of insane conspiracy theories, lied routinely, and ran cover for America’s enemies including Vladimir Putin). And yet, many on the political right revered him, deferred to him on serious issues, and let him shape perverse narratives that would become their conventional wisdom. This went on until President Trump publicly dressed him down in the summer of 2025 over Carlson’s criticism of the Trump administration helping Israel against Iran. At which point, many on the right, including Senator Ted Cruz (who was previously scared of getting on Carlson’s bad side), decided it was finally okay to start criticizing him, while pretending Carlson had suddenly changed into a different person (which he hadn’t).

I’m glad that more people, including Ben Shapiro (who’s been great on this), are very comfortable doing it now. But it sure would have been better if they had done it much earlier, and not vilified people (like Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes) who did stand up to Carlson. Because again, Carlson shaped a lot of warped and ugly sentiment on the right (that still exists today).

I’ve been cracking up at your “24” posts. I’d forgotten so much about those early episodes. Who’s your favorite character? — Ben G.

Lol. For those reading this, Ben’s referring to my X posts. I’ve been rewatching the great show, 24 (after my wife goes to bed), and reliving some memorable moments with my social-media peeps.

I know this is the conventional pick, but my favorite character really is Jack Bauer. I’ve been a fan of Kiefer Sutherland since I was a kid, and he was perfect on the show. Chloe’s great too, of course. But I’d forgotten, until I rewatched season 4, how entertaining Richard Heller, the defense secretary’s son, was.

Logan Marshall-Green’s portrayal of him was so over the top, but not in a bad or unconvincing way. It was an early role for Marshall-Green, who went on to become a brilliant (and highly underrated) actor.

For those who’ve never seen The Invitation, I’d high recommend it. He’s very good in Devil too.

John: I know like me you are a fiscal conservative, so this question is probably right in your wheelhouse. The situation in France seems like a harbinger of things to come in the United States. Decades of deficit spending have finally caught up to them (they last had a budget surplus in 1974), and France is having to cut basic services in education. This has led to violent protests, encouraged by French leftist politicians. The same ingredients seem to exist over on this side of the pond: Low social trust, low trust in the government, yet high expectations for cradle-to-grave government services. When the math ain’t mathin’ anymore, you get rioting in the streets. Is this about to happen in the U.S? — Steve R.

It reminds me a lot of the Greek debt crisis, that came to a head in 2009-2010, and continued on for almost a decade (with years of EU bailouts).

And yes, the United States is headed toward a catastrophic debt crisis of its own (we’re really already in it), which will be extremely ugly and extremely painful for millions of Americans when it comes to a head. And when that happens, we’ll have only ourselves to blame, because the crisis has been predicted, and supported by the math, for many years. And we’ve chosen to do nothing to avoid or even soften it. In fact, we’ve carelessly accelerated and deepened it.

By “we,” I’m talking about American voters and both major political parties. The numbers have been on display, for all to see, for a long time. The major drivers of our national debt, by far, are our major entitlement programs. They’re broken because they were made for a different era. They’re in desperate need of reform, and have been for many years. The Democratic Party has long denied this, and has demagogued every Republican effort to deal with the situation. Republicans abandoned the efforts themselves at the behest of Donald Trump, once he became the party’s leader and our president a decade ago. Trump promised to veto any major-entitlement reform legislation, and punish any Republican(s) who tried to pass any such bill. The Republican members of congress who actually took this issue seriously (like Paul Ryan) have been chased out of politics for being insufficiently servile to Trump.

And so now, here we are — racing off the edge of a fiscal cliff, while we focus almost all of our political energy on culture-war battles, and dealing with the excesses of Donald Trump and the woke mob. Congratulations, everyone.

Share

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

“He’s an air traffic controller on sick leave — traumatic sick leave.”

One of the more memorable decisions of Ronald Reagan’s presidency was his firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers in August of 1981.

A few months before that happened, as union discussions with the FAA were still ongoing, I covered the stresses faced by air traffic controllers — and one individual in particular — for the CBS Evening News. Back then, as you can probably gather from the report, the job was much more dependent on human interaction.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about increasingly bad news for Republicans in the midterms, taxpayer funded Trump ads, and Democrats politicizing the Cornell legal case.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Not that it matters to Donald Trump, but a lot of Americans are not fans.

They don’t like his public vulgarity, his narcissism, his appetite for vengeance — and a lot more. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the catch-all diagnosis his supporters like to apply to anyone who finds him objectionable.

They may have another condition brought on by the president. There’s a good chance they’re suffering from … Trump Fatigue.

I know the symptoms because I have it.

Every day with this president, something new hits the fan. Trump may need a daily dose of chaos, but the rest of us don’t. Chaos and controversy may be his oxygen. They may be what energize him. But after all these years, they’re what wear a lot of us out.

And there’s rarely time to digest one controversy before the next one comes barreling down the road and smacks us in the mouth.

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, isn't the poverty rate being manipulated by the Feds, who adjust the monetary amounts that determine the poverty level? Our president states the poverty level is the lowest it's been in many many decades, but doesn't that depend on where the goalposts are being set? According to DSS, they tell me the Federal Government sets the standards and rates. We are being gaslit with faulty information again. — Sharon H.

I don’t know much about this issue, Sharon, and really don’t want to spend a lot of time researching it. Lol. The charts show that the U.S. poverty rate has been in slow, steady decline for over a decade (other than a brief uptick in 2019/2020), spanning multiple presidencies. Is there some fudging going on, somewhere in the federal calculation? I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t have any real insight I can offer on that.

Sen. Eric Schmitt’s “basketball” perjury accusation toward Jack Smith was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen during a congressional hearing. 1) Will Schmitt recover politically? 2) What do you make of a bunch of right-wing influencers/commentators having been told ahead of time about the supposed bombshell accusation, and posting about the “gotcha” moment on social media, only to have to later delete the posts in embarrassment. — Alex D.

1. Schmitt will indeed recover from it (probably by Monday of next week), because there is no shame left in today’s politics. Our political leaders can say or do the most embarrassing, discrediting things imaginable, and never pay any price for it (beyond some short-term jokes at their expense). Schmitt was reportedly under consideration by JD Vance as a potential running mate in 2028. Some commentators think the humiliating moment blew Schmitt’s chance of that, but I can’t imagine it did (if there was ever serious consideration over him in the first place). Vance, after all, fueled a made-up story about Haitian immigrants in his home-state stealing people’s cats and dogs and eating them… And now he’s our vice president.

2. There’s a lot of coordination going on behind the scenes between Republican/MAGA politicians (including Trump) and members of the right-wing media (I’m sure the same happens on the left). This particular moment (which included Sean Hannity, Benny Johnson, Mark Levin, and others) perfectly illustrated that. They were locked and loaded to amplify the “perjury” claim (which was already falling apart within minutes), and the details behind it, the second it left Schmitt’s mouth. But like with Schmitt, their embarrassing role in it will be forgotten by Monday (because there’s no shame in the political media either).

Sir John— apparently an Omani co-pilot onboard a FlyDubai Airliner (heading toward Tel Aviv with mostly Israeli passengers) attacked the Captain, stabbing him repeatedly with a pocketknife in an attempted hijacking. Thankfully the Captain was rescued and the attacker was subdued by passengers, and a couple of other pilots who happened to be onboard were able to get control of the plane and prevent a deadly terrorist attack. Well the New York Times described the incident on X as “an altercation” between the co-pilot & the Captain. Critics claimed that The NYT was intentionally downplaying the attempted terrorist attack. The NYT responded that the critics are “activists & partisans” and that it doesn’t report on speculations & uncertainties. Well maybe. I really don’t know since I don’t spend any time on X. What do you think? Was it too early for the NYT to give any pertinent details? Or was it unnecessarily downplayed initially? Your thoughts ? —“Passengers Fly The Unfriendly Skies & WIN” regards from The Emperor

I saw some talk about this online, Emperor, but wasn’t following the NYT headlines and social-media posts in real-time. There are certainly many examples of news organizations playing down stories that are — let’s say — ideologically inconvenient to those reporting them. I would include violence against Israelis as one such category of reporting, especially in contrast with how military defensive action by the Israeli government, against its hostile neighbors, is often portrayed in the news media.

That said, there’s also a fog of war element to live reporting of wild incidents that are either still developing or just happened. The New York Times later argued that they were only reporting the facts they could confirm, as they were coming in, and weren’t going to speculate on what they couldn’t yet confirm. It’s certainly a defensible position, broadly speaking, but without actually being in the NYT newsroom, as the facts were coming in, it’s hard for me to judge the appropriateness of how they chose to cover the story early on.

On a side-note, it’s nothing short of a miracle that the passengers on that plane survived the attack. There were lots of heroes on board, especially the injured pilot.

John: I want to ask you today about income inequality. Bernie Sanders thinks the difference in wealth between top and bottom is a self-evident issue, so much so that he and his cohorts want to massively change the structure of the U.S. economy. I have often thought this issue stems from the sin of envy and is an excuse for a hard left political and economic takeover. What do I care how much money Bill Gates or Elon Musk make, especially if the bottom 20% also continue to raise their standard of living? However, there is some merit to the argument that top income earners and wealth holders bid the price up for housing and other durable and luxury goods. What are your thoughts about the issue of income inequality and basic affordability for the average American? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. Bernie Sanders is pretty much clueless on economic matters (as well as a number of other things). His brand of economic populism (which JD Vance largely subscribes to as well, sadly) is a recipe for enormous failure. Free market capitalism is hardly a perfect system, but it’s provably the best economic system on the planet, and has lifted more people out of poverty, and created more economic prosperity, than any other.

There will always be envy in societies where income inequality (or any inequality) exists, and people like Sanders stoke that envy for political gain. But societies, as a whole, greatly benefit from free market capitalism, free trade, private enterprise, and wealth creators (including those dastardly “rich people”). Such societies enjoy a higher standard of living across the board.

It’s largely the government, not “greedy CEOs,” that put up barriers to economic growth and prosperity that lead to a higher cost, and lower standard, of living. What Trump’s tariffs have done to the cost of goods in this country is a glaring, real-time example of that. And economic populists like Sanders want to create even more barriers… in the name of “fairness.”

No thanks. I’ll take free market capitalism.

I saw that someone on X got REALLY upset that you dared to criticize Obama in your last column (in a single sentence). Why are people still so defensive of that guy? — Ben G.

I’m not sure if you saw my explanation for it on X, Ben, but I’ve talked about it here before too. There are lefties who started following me on X, because, at some point, they saw that I’m critical of Donald Trump. They’re fine with me criticizing him (for pretty much anything). But some of them can’t take criticism (and I mean ANY criticism) of Barack Obama, which I also put out there from time to time. They almost see it as some kind of betrayal, which makes no sense, because:

1. I’m a conservative, and have very different political views than Democrats.

2. I’ve argued quite consistently that I thought Obama was a bad president. I thought it at the time, and I still think it now.

But similar to how many people on the right can’t accept valid criticism of Donald Trump (in large part due to an emotional attachment), many on the left still can’t accept valid criticism of Barack Obama. Some even still insist that criticizing Obama is inherently racist (though this particular commenter didn’t accuse me of that).

Share

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

“While you’re sleepin’ I’m creepin’.”

Auto theft was a huge problem in this country in the early 1980s, fueled by auto parts being in short supply. Police were in over their heads on the issue.

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News in late 1981, including one state that was starting to get very serious about the problem.

Read more

In September of 2006, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez stood before the United Nations Assembly in New York City, and launched into a sharp, personal attack on U.S. president George W. Bush.

Chávez, a socialist pseudo-dictator known for using his self-expanded power to punish political opponents and the Venezuelan media, repeatedly called Bush “the devil.” He said Bush smelled of sulfur, and labled him a “donkey,” “war criminal,” and “spokesman of imperialism” (among many other not-so-nice things).

Despite Bush’s approval ratings struggling at the time, many Americans didn’t take kindly to Chávez’s diatribe. It wasn’t just Republicans and conservatives who cried foul. Even some Democratic leaders, including some of Bush’s harshest critics in Washington, rushed to the president’s defense.

“You don’t come into my country, you don’t come into my congressional district, and you don’t condemn my president,” said New York congressman, Charlie Rangel. “George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning or public attacks against him are viewed by Republicans, Democrats, and all Americans as an attack on all of us.”

Rangel later clarified, “If there’s any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not.”

Nancy Pelosi spoke out as well, saying, “Hugo Chávez fancies himself a modern-day Simón Bolívar, but all he is is an everyday thug.”

The sentiment spread well beyond the Capitol.

Part of the reason Chávez came to the U.S. was to push a propagandistic effort to ingratiate himself with low-income Americans, whom he claimed Bush was neglecting. He offered free heating oil, from Venezuela’s state-owned petroleum company, to remote Alaska Native villages who were expecting a hard winter. It amounted to about 100 gallons per household, which was significant.

Most accepted the oil, but four villages, despite facing a severe fuel shortage and sub-zero temperatures, boldly refused the offer. They cited Chávez’s attack on Bush as the reason, with a spokesman explaining that accepting Chávez’s “gift” would mean “compromising” themselves as Americans.

“As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country,” said tribal administrator, Justine Gunderson. “But I don’t want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us.”

“Us” struck me as the key word in that statement.

I personally found the stance so admirable that I joined many other Americans that year in donating to the villages’ oil fund. To me, it wasn’t about defending George W. Bush. It was about, as Rangel and Gunderson described, standing up for American honor. A strongman leader had trashed our president on U.S. soil. Americans were right to be offended, and they were right to speak out against it.

As I’m often reminded these days, times have changed.

Last week, President Trump welcomed Chinese Communist Party leader, Xi Jinping, to the White House. The CCP is, of course, far worse, and far more hostile to the United States and the West, than Chávez’s regime ever was. The Chinese government jails, tortures, and kills domestic critics. They censor speech (including the internet), forbid independent media, and tightly control religion. They run detention camps, and are committing genocide against the Uyghur people. They run the world’s largest state hacking and online-manipulation campaign against the United States, they are the primary source of fentanyl imported into our country, and they are currently supplying the Iranian regime with parts, equipment, and intelligence against U.S. troops and U.S. interests. The list goes on, but you get the point.

Still, I didn’t have an enormous problem with Trump hosting Xi Jinping at the White House, or even rolling out the red carpet and thirstily greeting him on that airport tarmac (though it broke decades of diplomatic protocol and looked pretty embarrassing). What did make me angry, and offended me as an American, were Trump’s perverse antics with Xi Jinping in front of the Presidential Walk of Fame.

Most of you are probably familiar with the “Presidential Walk of Fame” by now. It was one of the early vanity projects of Trump’s second term: a gallery of gold-framed presidential portraits Trump had installed along the West Colonnade of the White House. Contrary to its name, and its view from a distance, the wall is hardly a tribute to our nation’s leaders. It’s instead a running gag for Trump’s personal amusement and self-affirmation. The plaques beneath the portraits include Trump’s personal sentiments toward a number of presidents.

President Obama is described as "one of the most divisive political figures in American History.” President Reagan is falsely depicted a “a fan of President Donald J. Trump.” President Clinton’s plaque includes mention of Trump defeating his wife in 2016. Naturally, President Trump’s own plaques are overflowing with fawning praise of himself. And President Biden? Well, he didn’t even warrant a portrait. Instead, there’s a picture of an autopen above some obligatory “stolen election” nonsense and a slew of other demeaning remarks.

It’s all very stupid and undignified, of course, but there’s a fine line between something being “stupid and undignified” and profoundly un-American. Trump crossed that line when he paused, in front of the cameras, to make a big show out of the “autopen portrait” for Xi Jinping. The two shared a hearty laugh over Biden’s disparagement, which a White House staffer proudly posted on social media (along with a laughter emoji) to commemorate the national disgrace.

And make no mistake about it: it was a national disgrace — a duly elected U.S. president publicly mocking a duly elected U.S. president in front of (and to suck up to) the communist leader of China. And not only did he do it on American soil; he did it at the People’s House.

The butt of the joke wasn’t Joe Biden. It was America.

Like millions of Americans, I thought Biden was a terrible president. I’ve leveled all kinds of criticism at the man. But none of it matters in the context of an enemy (or at least an adversary) of the United States.

Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg said it well:

The president of the United States is supposed to be a steward of the executive branch, and when conducting foreign affairs, a steward of America. He has an institutional role, which is supposed to have some continuity from president to president — some institutional respect.

We on the political right used to understand this. It’s why so many of us took exception to President Obama’s “apology tour,” and his inclination to blame so many of his political woes on his predecessor (a practice that has only become more popular since then).

Likewise, we understood, as we did with Hugo Chávez, that a foreign adversary insulting our president, especially within our borders, was an insult to our nation.

I still believe that. If you do as well, you should find it abhorrent that a U.S. president would hand-deliver such an insult to a foreign adversary at the White House. If you don’t, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

Share

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the language (and double standards) used by some of Israel’s critics.

Share

Read more

Here’s a novel idea in our polarized political culture: Two things can be true at the same time.

Donald Trump can be wrong to punish news organizations whose coverage he doesn’t like. And those same news organizations can be guilty of exactly what the president accuses them of — treating him unfairly.

You don’t have to choose sides. You don’t have to join Team Trump or Team Media. You can believe in a free press without pretending the press is always fair. And you can believe much of the coverage of Donald Trump is biased without believing a president gets to decide which journalists are allowed through the White House gates.

That shouldn’t be complicated. Somehow, these days, it is.

President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of spreading “FAKE NEWS.” He said the action wasn’t an assault on the free press, which he claimed he cherishes, but an assault on fake news — something he described as “corrupt, purposeful, pervasive” and a threat to national security.

That’s Trump being Trump. He doesn’t merely criticize. He goes nuclear.

But there’s a much more important issue here than presidential hyperbole. The government doesn’t get to punish news organizations because the president doesn’t like what they report or how they report it. And now a federal judge has temporarily blocked the ban and ordered the White House to restore access to the three organizations.

That’s as it should be. A president doesn’t get to hand out constitutional protections only to journalists who treat him nicely. A free press has to be free to criticize the president — even if it’s unfairly.

And that brings us to the part of this story that much of the mainstream press would rather not talk about.

CNN and MS NOW — I’m leaving Politico out of this because I don’t follow it closely enough to make a judgment — really are relentlessly negative in their coverage of Donald Trump.

That doesn’t mean they routinely get their facts wrong. But journalism can be factually accurate and still be unfair.

Bias isn’t only about putting something on the air that isn’t true. It’s also about what stories get covered and which ones don’t. It’s about which guests get invited on, which questions get asked, how much time is devoted to a controversy, and whether one side gets an open microphone while the other side is barely heard from.

Watch CNN or MS NOW for any length of time and you’ll see plenty of Democratic members of Congress invited on to tell viewers what’s wrong with Donald Trump — while liberal journalists sit there like potted plants. But, yes, Presidents deserve scrutiny, and Trump supplies journalists with plenty to scrutinize.

But where’s the balance?

When Trump does something these networks believe is wrong — and, yes, a lot of the time they have a legitimate case — they play it big. When he does something that might reflect well on him, the enthusiasm for saturation coverage has a funny way of disappearing. So they downplay, or flat-out ignore, news that makes the president look good.

Is that illegal? No.

Is it journalism at its best? I don’t think so.

And this is where both sides could benefit from a little self-examination.

Donald Trump would be better off if he weren’t so thin-skinned. Presidents have enormous power. Journalists don’t work for them, and criticism comes with the job. Trying to use government power to stifle unfavorable coverage isn’t how a free country is supposed to operate.

But journalists might also benefit from climbing down from the moral high ground every once in a while.

Whenever conservatives complain about liberal media bias, too many journalists react as if the accusation itself is ridiculous — just another right-wing grievance dreamed up by people who don’t appreciate courageous journalism.

Maybe instead of automatically circling the wagons, they could ask an uncomfortable question: Is there anything to the criticism?

There often is.

What I find especially galling is the sanctimony of CNN, a news operation that can suffocate you with its self-importance. CNN ran story after story on the ban but refused to acknowledge its role — that of partisan player, one that routinely downplays Democratic failures — like Joe Biden’s disastrous open border policy — while playing up anything and everything his successor has done wrong.

Bias against Republicans isn’t a figment of the conservative imagination. Still, that doesn’t mean every journalist is a Democratic operative with a press pass — even though more than a few act as if they were. It doesn’t mean negative stories about Trump are necessarily wrong. And it certainly doesn’t give a president the right to retaliate against news organizations.

It means something much simpler: Journalists are human beings. They have blind spots. They have political and cultural assumptions. And when enough people in the same profession share those assumptions, bias can become so routine that the people practicing it don’t even recognize it as bias. And yes, some journalists just plain loathe this president and don’t care if they’re fair or not.

But journalists aren’t the only ones with blind spots. Despite what his critics may think, Trump is human too. So he wants to get even with his perceived enemies — and his answer is to punish the press.

The press’s answer too often is to pretend there’s nothing about itself worth criticizing.

Neither response inspires much confidence.

A president who respects the First Amendment should tolerate journalism he considers unfair. And journalists who expect the public to trust them should be willing to ask whether, sometimes, the president has a point.

Both things can be true at the same time.

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…

Fox News is now running literal campaign ads for Donald Trump that are “Paid for by the U.S Government.” How is this possibly legal? — Alex D.

First of all, you aren’t kidding about it being a campaign ad, Alex. It’s not some PSA message (contrary to what some are saying). It is irrefutably a political campaign ad for Trump himself, featuring his image over and over again, his campaign slogans, supposed political achievements, people praising him, and women singing “love me” a bunch of times. And yes, the caption at the end says it was paid for by the U.S. Government (aka U.S. taxpayers).

For those who haven’t seen the commercial, here it is:

This shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: This is a completely unethical use of taxpayers’ money, and it should bother every self-respecting American that the federal government is doing this. As for whether it’s illegal, I’m guessing it probably is (based on the Hatch Act). Lawyers are probably already looking into it.

John, sorry for the longer question today. I want to return to the subject of “banned books”, something we have discussed before in this space, because I continue to see it in local bookstore news. “Banned books” seems to be one more term whose definition is intentionally expanded by the left in an effort to be more empowered in their victimhood. The usual understanding of book bans comes from Nazi Germany, where the Nazis began a campaign of extreme censorship in the 1930’s to erase all ideas opposed to fascist ideology. This took the form of public book burnings and outlawing the ownership of certain publications. The 21st Century definition now includes books that are either removed or not allowed in school libraries due to their age appropriateness. To me, this is discretion and not censorship. If I can freely pick up a book at Barnes & Noble or order it from Amazon, it’s not "banned". When I was in high school, a group of friends and I were gathered around a Sports Illustrated when a librarian became suspicious and asked us what we were reading. When she realized it was the SI Swimsuit Edition, she took it from us. Nobody thought our rights were being violated; we just thought we were getting away with something. As a professional writer, what are your thoughts? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. There are some conservatives I very much respect (including Jonah Goldberg) who get really bent out of shape over the “Banned Books” section in bookstores (I’ve teased Jonah about this). I don’t disagree with their reasoning (some of which you described above), and I agree that it is indeed false phrasing, but I guess don’t see it in as nefarious terms as others do. I think it’s largely just a cheap and tacky marketing strategy to sell books.

John DAiLY, how could you say this?: “Trump himself clearly doesn't even care about [the midterms].” President Trump will be campaigning next two months to WIN. — Conrad P.

Because, my dear Conrad, if President Trump were truly worried about the GOP losing congressional majorities, he wouldn’t have endorsed (as he has many times over the years) highly problematic primary candidates (like Ken Paxton) over stronger and safer general-election candidates (like incumbent John Cornyn). His super PAC wouldn’t be withholding hundreds of millions of pledged campaigned dollars from Republican congressional candidates. He wouldn’t be forcing the needless continuation of high consumer prices with his ridiculous trade policies (which have lost Republicans their long-standing polling advantage on the economy). He wouldn’t be shamelessly profiting off the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars, and directing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to his personal vanity projects (which further torches the Republican brand, and highlights the party’s refusal to hold him accountable for anything). He also wouldn’t be cozying up to, praising, and normalizing Zohran Mamdani, who many congressional Republicans and their campaigns have made the face of their opposition.

I’ve never heard a compelling case that Trump genuinely cares about the Republican Party (beyond it being loyal to him). What he cares about is Donald Trump.

Oh, and if Trump were truly worried about a socialist takeover of the country (as you and he insist he is), he wouldn’t be governing as the most socialist president of my lifetime (as demonstrated by him taking government stakes in dozens of private companies, massive tariffs, corporate welfare, price controls, $5,000 “dividend” checks, export bans, etc.).

Sir John: Donald Trump was addressing the UN and he mentioned that he is conflicted about what to do about the Iran war situation. He wonders if the IRGC will come to their senses and make an historic deal with him and make Iran great again, or should he blow them to smithereens. Trump says he won’t make that decision until after the midterm elections. He added that the Iranians need to realize that no matter what happens during the midterms, Trump is still going to be president. Well, OK but that doesn’t solve the problem NOW which I believe that I & many Americans want solved. Why doesn’t he solve the situation now, and be done with it and blow them to smithereens since the IRGC members don’t want to make a deal with him? Seriously what does Trump hope to accomplish by waiting until after the midterms when the Republicans will probably get shellacked anyway? Doesn’t Trump realize that the IRGC is counting on Democrat victories to thwart any of Trump’s plans for victory over the IRGC? —“Hit Or Get Off The Pot” Regards from The Emperor

It’s often a challenge, Emperor, to try and make sense of President Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks, so I’ll address the broader points here…

The timing of the midterms shouldn’t have anything to do with our Iran strategy. If Trump’s consciously holding off on employing something until after the midterms, that would likely mean that that “something” would make the Republican Party even less popular than they currently are. (That said, I again don’t think Trump cares much about the GOP congress, nor the Republican Party as a whole).

As far as “blowing them to smithereens,” it’s sometimes hard to tell if Trump is referring to the Iranian regime or the entire country of Iran (he seems to go back and forth on that). If he’s talking about the latter (which won’t happen), that would obviously be psychotic and amount to massive war crimes. If he’s talking about the former, it’s easier said than done, because what’s left of the regime is quite scattered throughout the country (for their own survival). Airstrikes alone aren’t going to bring regime change in Iran (which doesn’t seem to have ever been the plan in the first place). Regime change would require ground troops and/or arming Iranian opposition (which is still reeling from earlier this year). And thus far, Trump hasn’t had the appetite for that.

Good point on the Reagan podcast this week about JD Vance sharing many of the same views as Michael Moore 20 years ago. I’d never thought of that, but both economically and on foreign policy, he sure does! — Ben G.

Thanks. They assuredly have differences on social issues, but there’s A LOT about today’s Right that lines up closely with yesterday’s (and even today’s) Left. Vance is an especially good example. A lot of people just haven’t noticed it, because ideological differences have been replaced with reflexive tribalism.

Share

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

“B-I-N-G-O spells money — big money.”

In the late 1970s, the Seminole Native American Tribe opened a high-stakes bingo hall on its reservation in Broward County, Florida. The county’s sheriff, Robert Butterworth (no relation to the syrup icon), threatened to enforce Florida’s bingo statue on the reservation, which limited the cash prizes given out to players (a rule that applied to competing bingo ventures throughout the state, which provided the Seminole Tribe with a significant competitive advantage).

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News in August of 1981.

Sheriff Butterworth, by the way, would go on to lose multiple legal battles in his quest to regulate Seminole Bingo, including with the Supreme Court.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about Trump’s media ban, movement in the midterms, the Bo French controversy, the Triumphal Arch, and the Iran War.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

At the GOP convention in Dallas earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance pretty much summed up the Republican strategy for the midterms — and it comes down to this: Whatever you think of us … the other side is worse.

Here’s how he put it: “It’s the party of common sense beating the party of the crazies.”

Democrats probably wouldn’t take issue with that — except they think theirs is the party of common sense and Republicans are the crazies.

Vance, along with everybody else, knows that things look bleak for Republicans as the midterms approach. The president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress — and this time around, the Mr. Trump’s approval numbers are at record lows.

So what Vance is trying to do by telling voters that they’re taking a great big chance if they vote for Democrats … is try to minimize what looks like the inevitable damage. Online prediction markets says Democrats have an almost 90 percent chance of taking control of the House — and a better than 50 percent chance to winning the Senate.

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…

This $5000 “carrot” that Trump floated comes off to me as nothing more than a grandiose, BS, campaign promise like every other politician. And no, I don’t like it. The other thing is, how is this any different than Biden promising to pay off student loan debt.

To me, they are both “vote buying”. And again, I despise it. As always, I could be wrong. But I’m independent, so objectively, that’s my take on it. Every White House lies. And Politicians, especially in an election year, are prone to say anything. I rely on John and Bernie to sort things out. So I always appreciate that!!!! — Rob O.

Hi Rob. As I’ve argued, I do think it’s very similar to Biden’s student-debt forgiveness efforts — just more brazen in the rhetoric, because Trump is making it purely conditional on Republicans maintaining congressional majorities. But I’ve also argued that it’s assuredly not going to happen. Aside from this being at least the fourth time Trump has promised “stimulus” or “dividend” checks to Americans in his second term alone, the condition he laid out this time — of the Republicans maintaining the House — has virtually no chance of being met.

Of note, Bill O’Reilly said [Trump’s $5,000 promise] is not a bribe because the recipients don’t have to do anything, i.e. there’s no quid pro quo. REALLY? Does Mr. O’Reilly think his base viewers are that stupid? Or maybe he thinks they’ll want to believe his remark so much that they’ll accept it without question? Or maybe Mr. O’Reilly is willfully dense when it comes to his old buddy Donald Trump.

He promised that at the so-called Mid-Term Convention when he was urging the audience - those in attendance especially but also viewers and those getting their info from right-wing screechers - to not only vote Republican but to canvass for Republicans and, yes, to vote more than once. Although on this last statement, his hardcore supporters will say “he was only joking.” But he’s the President of the United States delivering a primetime speech!

Although those included in his bribe were those not voting Republican, obviously for the Republicans to win the mid-terms there’d have to be collective and feverous activity.

If the bigwigs in the Democratic Party leap tall buildings to deliver the mid-terms to the Republicans, will President Trump’s hardcore supporters say “He was only joking” when he reneges on his promise? — Bob H.

The generic, widely-accepted definition of the word “bribe” is:

a payment or reward offered to influence a person's behavior or decision.

Personally, I think that applies very well to this situation (as it did to Biden’s student-loan forgiveness efforts). Trump is offering a direct payment to voters, contingent on Republicans holding congressional majorities, to influence those voters to vote for Republicans in the midterms. If someone would rather not use the word “bribe” to describe such a thing, I guess I don’t care much… as long as they’re politically consistent with it.

As for what would happen if Republicans held both a House and Senate majority (the odds of that are almost nothing), and Trump didn’t deliver on his promise, I think his hardcore supporters would just shrug it off, and carry on like he never said it in the first place. Trump has reneged on all kinds of promises, and his supporters never seem to mind.

Sir John, according to this video, two U.S. teens in Alamo, Texas were on their way to enlist in the U. S. Marine Corps; they even had their papers with them. Allegedly they began recording an ICE encounter with someone else. ICE agents eventually caught up to them and brutally assaulted and detained them while blatantly ignoring their proof that they were on their way to enlist in the USMC. After this encounter, the teens are now understandably reconsidering their plans to enlist. The usual suspects in the media (specifically Telemundo & The New Republic) are of course painting this as another example ICE “Gestapo” promoting the white supremacy of the Trump Administration. On the one hand, if this reporting is totally accurate, then the rogue ICE agents must face justice for this abuse! On the other hand, stories such as this (like that hoax about the old man getting picked up by ICE and being deported to El Salvador while he attempted to renew his green card) seem tailor made for leftist media. Do you know anything about this story? Can you share some light on it? —“Dishonorable Intentions In Texas” Regards from The Emperor

Emperor, whenever you begin a question with “according to this video,” a little bit of me dies inside. Lol.

No, I don’t know anything about the story. But I do know that random people can and do post misleading or unsubstantiated takes on YouTube, and make money off the attention they receive. Thus, I don’t use YouTube as a reliable news source.

Some say Bill O'Reilly makes efforts on his NSN to humanize Pres. Trump much more than Trump deserves; one example being he states our president doesn't want to send ground troops in Iran because he doesn't want to kill Iranians. In your opinion, are some attempting to "humanize" Trump far beyond reality? ICE has been accused of human rights violations and he, Trump, has no problem with ICE tactics or abuses. He won't mandate body cams- that speaks volumes. — Sharon H.

Broadly speaking, Sharon, pro-Trump commentators have been doing this type of thing, on a routine basis, for the last ten years. Few want to acknowledge to their pro-Trump audience that our president’s decisions are largely based on self-interest and often even whims, because that would be an admission that he’s a shallow figure, and poor leader, who almost always puts himself before the country. And that would hurt the MAGA mythology.

Thus, the inclination has been to twist and bend Trump’s decisions into artificial alignment with some ideological or moral framework, to make them appear noble and provident (when they’re often not).

In regard to this specific issue, I don’t think Trump’s reluctance to use ground troops in Iran has anything to do with the sanctity of life. Like you, I haven’t seen much evidence of him being a humanitarian. I think he just wants this conflict to be over, because it’s making him look bad, and sending in ground troops would be a significant escalation of the conflict. Trump has made very clear (in his own words) that he believed the military operation in Iran would go down similarly to how the one in Venezuela did: a quick removal of the top leadership, and the rest of the regime just kind of falling in line to play nice with the United States. But that was never going to happen, unfortunately, and so tougher decisions have been called for.

How am I not supposed to laugh at commenters who claim you’re not a conservative, while they simultaneously defend Trump’s leftist income-redistribution ideas, trade wars, and other socialist policies? — Ben G.

Feel free to laugh, Ben. It really is absurd. But I find it more sad that funny. It’s clear such people have no idea what conservatism and socialism even are.

Did you ever think you’d hear an FBI Director advocating for the right of a human “victim” of bestiality to become an FBI agent? Lol — Alex D.

No, but it sadly didn’t feel out of place in today’s politics.

Share

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

“If they were doing that outside the arena, they would be arrested.”

In late 1981, for the CBS Evening News, I did a story on a measurable uptick in professional-sports violence in the United States, and how it mirrored other aspects of American society.

Read more

As a conservative, one of my big frustrations over the past decade has been the willingness (and even eagerness) of self-described conservatives to support and defend initiatives and rhetoric from Donald Trump that are antithetical to conservatism.

I’ve offered countless examples of this over the years (including very recently), so I won’t run back through the list again. But my biggest problem with this tribal inclination is that it conflates the wisdom and successes of fusionist conservatism (that has greatly benefited our nation) with the unprincipled whims, musings, and posturing of a single individual whose actions have steadily chipped away at it.

We’re at the point that authentically conservative ideas (as they were widely understood from the 1950s up until the Trump era) have largely been eradicated from the Republican Party.

This has done an enormous disservice to our the country, the evidence of which presents itself in every sobering glance at the national-debt clock, our government taking equity stakes in dozens of private companies, a self-defeating trade war, the needless alienation of longtime allies, a rising abortion rate, select culture battles, and almost daily displays of federal corruption and executive abuses — many of the rationalizers and blame-shifters of which call themselves “conservatives.”

So yeah, it’s all pretty irritating to me.

What I don’t believe, however, is that the mislabeling has been done out of spite, mockery, or conscious disrespect for conservatism and conservatives. I think it’s instead a convenient rhetorical fallback that lots of people have grown accustomed to, are comfortable identifying themselves with, and continue to use mostly out of habit.

I can not say the same of other activity that comes out of Trump World. It often seems as if the president and his team are conducting some type of social experiment, in the vein of the movie “Trading Places,” in which they’re determined to see just how foolish and hypocritical they can make their most loyal defenders look.

It’s no secret that Trump and company pay very close attention to the narratives and discussions that take off in the right-wing media (heck, they shape many of them). They’re keenly aware of what types of conduct, when displayed by prominent Democrats, are found especially outrageous and contemptible by pro-Trump audiences. Thus, it’s remarkable how often they not only exhibit the same conduct themselves, but ratchet it up to a far more contemptible and outrageously corrupt degree… with the clear (and well-founded) expectation that their passionate supporters will either ignore it, or full-throatedly defend it.

There are many examples of this, but two recent stories illustrate the practice quite well.

We all know the saga of President Biden’s degenerate son, Hunter. Beyond the drug abuse, tax evasion, and exhaustively recorded sexual promiscuity is a guy who spent years trying to cash in on his dad’s name. During the Obama era, there were clear instances of Hunter at least attempting to sell foreign energy companies access to his vice-president father. That revelation later became a major, years-long, Republican and right-wing-media line of attack against Joe Biden, the Biden administration, and what was often referred to as the “Biden crime family.”

Sean Hannity alone, on his Fox News show, aired over 300 segments on Hunter Biden’s corruption, including how Hannity believed it implicated President Biden.

Fast-forward just a few years…

Last May, Donald Trump’s son, Don Jr., got married on a private island in the Bahamas. Some observers found it odd at the time that the patriarch of the Trump family — our president — wasn’t in attendance. What wasn’t known until very recently was that the lavish event was secretly paid for, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, by a Russian oligarch named Umar Kremlev.

Kremlev has a long criminal history, and has been personally sanctioned by Ukraine for his role in the abduction of Ukrainian children. He has control over major automotive and gambling assets, and perhaps more notably has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Not only did Kremlev fork over a six-figure sum to assure the Trump family had a marriage-kickoff they’ll never forget. He was also a guest at the event, the attendees of which the Trump newlyweds have described as a small group of close friends and family.

As Propublica reported, “Kremlev’s previously unreported relationship with Trump Jr. represents an extraordinary development: a member of Putin’s circle financially supporting the president’s son and gaining intimate access to the Trump family… For a decade, Putin’s government, regarded as a chief adversary of the U.S., has been accused of efforts to influence American elections… National security experts expressed alarm at Trump Jr. accepting the oligarch’s largesse, saying it raised an urgent question: What motivated Kremlev to spend a fortune cultivating the connection?”

One of those national security experts is retired FBI official Frank Montoya Jr., who told Propublica, “If I’m paying for your wedding, at some point, you’re going to owe me something… This should be unthinkable for the son of the president. End of story.”

But as we’ve learned countless times in this political era, things that were previously considered unthinkable are now just commonplace… as are the tribal obligations to overlook or defend the indefensible. Case in point, as of the time I’m writing this, Sean Hannity has yet to publicly even mention the Kremlev story. In fact, the story has received only one brief mention (less than a minute of air-time) on all of Fox News, and that was by Bret Baier.

The same has largely been true outside of Fox, with Ben Shapiro being one of the very few Trump-friendly commentators who’s bothered to respond to the controversy.

The other recent news-story of note is President Trump’s vow to send every adult U.S. citizen a check for $5,000 if — and only if — Republicans keep both the Senate and House in the midterm elections. This has received a lot of attention on the political right. But rather than framing the ploy as a shameless act of bribery, income redistribution, or socialism (the way righties justifiably described President Biden’s student-loan forgiveness efforts), many prominent right-wing commentators have twisted themselves into the rhetorical pretzels to defend it.

“It’s not a bribe because it’s not done in secret,” Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld insisted the other day. “If it’s in public, it’s a deal. And it’s not a bribe if it’s your money… Meanwhile, the Dems… it’s always other people’s money — that’s where it’s socialism. They promise people who aren’t paying taxes that they’re going to get more money. That’s socialism.”

Gutfeld’s nonsensical, fact-averse defense was widely mocked online, with a number of people pointing out that almost half of the Americans who’d receive a $5,000 check, under Trump’s “deal,” pay no federal income taxes. Another 20-25% pay less than $5,000 a year. In other words, by Gutfeld’s own definition, it would, in fact, be socialism. It would also be a bribe — at least according to the Greg Gutfeld of 2022, who routinely applied the term to Biden’s student loan stunt (which, like Trump’s proposal, was “not done in secret”).

“Kind of amazing that Gutfeld thinks Fox viewers are stupid enough to believe this,” remarked Vanity Fair’s Aidan McLaughlin. “Just extraordinary contempt for your audience.”

Indeed. And it’s not just contempt. It’s also mockery of those who’ve placed their trust in him.

Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity defended the socialist bribe as well, calling concerns over the $1.2 trillion of additional national-debt required for the plan’s implementation to be an “intellectually lazy argument.”

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy marveled at “how creative and rule-breaking and out of the box President Trump is.” She added, “I'm surprised no one has thought of this before.”

In reality, lots of politicians have thought of bribing voters… just like lots of political commentators have (at the behest of politicians, political movements, and business models) displayed breathtaking hypocrisy and hackery that disrespects their audience.

But audiences don’t have to go along with the nonsense. Neither do political constituencies. No one’s forcing anyone to reduce themselves to mindless political servants. That’s a choice. And when it comes to choices, it’s always better — at least in the realm of politics — to choose principles over people.

The former preserves your credibility and dignity. The latter compels you to surrender both.

Share

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the GOP settling on a midterm campaign strategy — one that the Democrats are welcoming.

Share

Read more

You’d think that a self-described genius like Donald Trump would have more sense than to post an AI-generated image on social media declaring “Mission Accomplished” in Iran.

For one thing, the mission is not accomplished. Iran still has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, and missiles are still flying over the Strait of Hormuz.

So how exactly is the mission accomplished?

And you’d think the president might have learned something from another president — George W. Bush, who stood in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln while the war in Iraq wasn’t even close to being over.

Mission accomplished became a symbol of failure — and ammunition for the war’s critics.

But there’s something else intriguing about all of this.

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…

Trump is now promising to send $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans hold the House and Senate. This is not just plain bribery, but in-your-face socialism. I thought Trump was supposed to be saving us from socialism (that’s the line anyway). Your take? — Alex D.

Many of my fellow righties hate when I say this, Alex, but it’s demonstrably true: Trump has done more socialist things, as U.S. president, than any other president in my lifetime… all while insisting that he’s saving the country from socialism. It’s pure gaslighting, and it’s been very sad to me how many of my fellow righties — many of whom still self-identify as conservatives — refuse to see through it (and even cheer it on).

This particular bribe (as you properly labeled it) would cost $1.3 trillion that we don’t have, and thus would be added to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $41 trillion). It would also drive inflation back up.

Now, the good news, purely from a fiscal perspective, is that Trump is also chronically dishonest. Since returning to the White House, he has promised $5,000 stimulus checks in the form of a “DOGE dividend," $2,000 stimulus checks in the form of a "tariff dividend," and $1,000 checks in the form of "savings" from expiring ACA subsidies. None of these things ever happened. Plus, he has an ‘out’ this time, because he knows Republicans are going to at least lose the House.

Still, Americans (especially conservatives) should be angered and embarrassed by this stuff.

Do you think the question, “Do you love America?” which on the surface is a pretty straightforward question, is now viewed thru a political lens, as almost everything in our society now is? What I mean is, people now read an underlying intent or agenda into the question, rather than accept it at face value. “Do you love America?” could be interpreted as “Do you love Donald Trump’s America?”, or a couple of years ago, “Do you love Joe Biden’s America?”.

If one has an unqualified love for America, why would one need to “Make America Great Again”? The implication is that America is NOT currently great. — John M.

I’m glad you asked this, John. I certainly don’t view that question through a political lens, by I know that a lot of Americans absolutely do.

A few months ago, I interviewed Kevin Williamson of The Dispatch, and we got into this very topic. He did a great job of explaining why so many Americans view that question differently based on who’s sitting in the Oval Office:

It’s important for Americans to remember that the president isn’t the country. He’s not even the government. He’s just the chief administrator of one branch of one level of the American government.

We have a tendency to have this kind of quasi-monarchist view of our country, in which it’s personified in some mystical way by the president who’s become this increasingly, strangely sacramental and spiritualized figure in American life, which is the root of so much of our political discomfort, I think.

When you have a president that you think of as the personification of your country, then one half of the country is always going to be sort of miserable and unhappy when they’re the ones out of power, because it feels like they don’t have that special connection to their country…

I think he’s absolutely right.

O’Reilly can be a polarizing figure, and I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s adamant that he is fact based on his reporting, and will not ever use anonymous sources. Also claims he has a staff of over 25 people working for him in vetting anything he reports. So when he said THIS on his show, it grabbed my attention. He was asked why the House Democratic votes under Speaker Pelosi were always unanimous, and he responded that she threatens to take away the campaign funds of any dissenters. Huh? And he also said nobody in the CMS media will ever report it. Have you or Bernie ever heard this? We’ve all heard she ran the House with an iron fist, but this sounds like extortion. And how would she have the authority to even do this. I know one thing, it seems to make sense. Because the Dems, unlike the GOP, always stuck together. Could Speaker Johnson do the same thing to get the votes he needs on critical legislation. Not saying I agree with it.

And one other thing. Unlike Fox News viewers, I’m not outraged by Bernie’s integrity (and yours), I’M THANKFUL FOR IT. It’s why I subscribe. — Rob O.

First of all, Rob, thanks again for the kinds words. We really appreciate them.

Regarding Pelosi, that’s not quite right (though it’s not totally wrong either). Democratic House votes were not unanimous under her. They were certainly highly unified by historical standards, but not unanimous. And the primary reason they were unified is that Pelosi wouldn’t even bring legislation to a vote until she was certain she had enough Democratic votes to get that legislation passed. Some people believe that made her a very effective House leader. I think it was a bad practice, because it stifled open congressional debate on legislation, which is sort of how the legislative process is supposed to work.

That said, there were indeed occasional reports of at least implied threats from Pelosi against fellow Democrats when it came to specific legislation, like the Build Back Better reconciliation package. The Democrats had a slim majority in the House at the time, and there were some Democratic holdouts who were trying to get some extra goodies. Behind closed doors, Pelosi reportedly implied that she would put a hold on their campaign funding if they didn’t fall in line. I don’t think this was standard operating procedure for Pelosi, but it was clearly part of her procedural arsenal.

I'm gobsmacked at this one- Trump posts an AI image of himself holding hands or arms with Dolly Parton after her death while everyone knows she was politically neutral, even refusing awards so as to NOT appear political. Dolly's sister Stella is furious, to say the least. This behavior has hit an all-time high, so, what's next? — Sharon H.

All-time high? In the grand scheme of things, Sharon, I think this is actually very small potatoes. It’s probably not even one of Trump’s top-10 most off-putting responses to a celebrity’s death (the mockery of Rob Reiner’s murder being number one). Heck, it’s probably not even in the top 1000 worst things he’s posted on social media.

Here’s how I broadly look at Trump’s behavior: America chose to send Donald Trump back to the White House after he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, caused a deadly riot/insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and showed-off stolen top-secret government documents (including nuclear and war plans) to random people at his country club. After that, the sky was the limit. Someone with Trump’s ego could have only interpreted his reelection as societal validation of his actions, and a deeper permission structure to say and do whatever he wanted for the next four years. Any trepidation from his first term (instilled by the much better presidential advisors he had back then) would essentially become nonexistent.

Thus, we’ve gotten mass pardons of criminals (including hundreds of violent ones), the blatant political-weaponization of the DOJ, the unprecedented personal-monetization of the presidency (that has at least quadrupled Trump’s net-worth), central planning of the U.S. economy, a left-wing crackpot in charge of HHS, a Fox News weekend host in charge of the DOD, etc. The list goes on.

So, in comparison, the Dolly Parton post isn’t even a blip on the radar (at least not my radar).

John: A recent poll showed that 92% of Americans - a record number - distrust the U.S. government. But the latest initiatives by both parties want to greatly expand the size and role of government. I'm having a hard time squaring these two seemingly contradictory situations. Can you explain this? — Steve R.

Yes. The explanation is that neither major political party has any interest in building or maintaining the public’s trust.

Republican leaders largely just do whatever Trump wants, and let him get away with all kinds of things they’d never tolerate from a Democratic president. Democratic leaders largely buried their heads in the sand (until they couldn’t any longer) over our previous president’s cognitive incapacity to do the job. Now Americans are watching wacky DSA candidates make inroads in the Democratic Party.

Neither party is taking on our nation’s biggest challenges, and proposing serious solutions to serious problems; they’re much too busy fueling culture battles, stoking grievance, bribing select constituencies, and burying us under mountains of the debt (while claiming it’s entirely the other side’s fault).

But as Bernie has pointed out numerous times, the unindicted co-conspirator in all of this is the American voter (92% of whom currently say they distrust the government). That’s who keeps putting these untrustworthy clowns in power. In most cases, I blame primary voters (and those who don’t bother participating in the primaries) more than I do general-election voters, but nonetheless, elections have consequences. And now… here we are.

Sir John — as we remember the terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda on 9/11, I’m hearing that some New Yorkers don’t want Mandani attending any anniversary acknowledgements because of his association with alleged terrorist sympathizers. Your thoughts? — “Never Forget!” regards from The Emperor

I suppose I can understand that point of view, Emperor, but as the mayor of New York City, Mamdani will assuredly be attending 9/11 anniversary events.

For years Trump has been making up stories about his actions and supposedly what he witnessed on 9/11/2001, including taking his “crew” down to Ground Zero and he and them helping with the rescue and recovery efforts. That didn’t happen, and yet he brought it up again this week during a speech, and added some story about two firemen picking him up and rushing him to safety. I’ve seen some people describe this as “stolen valor.” Do you agree? — Ben G.

Yes, I think that’s fair. By falsely claiming that he essentially ran toward the danger at Ground Zero, and participated in the work that actual heroes (who put themselves in real danger) were doing, he absolutely opened himself up for that criticism.

As an acquaintance of mine said the other day: “There was a time when a politician making up a story like Trump did about 9/11 would just totally and irrevocably sink them forever. And it was maybe only 12 years ago.”

Share

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