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.

This 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.

“It’s being called traffic anarchy, and nowhere is it more blatant than in New York City…”

This isn’t what you’d call a groundbreaking story, but as with many issues of public safety, it was a legitimate one.

In late 1981, for the CBS Evening News, I covered the reckless abandon of traffic laws in big cities, including the Big Apple.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about the midterm elections being in full swing, what the Democrats will do if/once they retake the House, and the 25th anniversary of 9/11.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

All 435 House seats, along with 33 seats in the Senate, will be up for grabs in the midterm elections. Donald Trump’s name will not be on any of those ballots. Not a single one.

And yet just about every Democrat will be running against him.

Midterm elections are a report card on how the president is doing — and voters almost always decide the president, any president, isn’t doing a good enough job. That’s why the president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress.

And as the midterms approach, this president’s report card doesn’t look very good. Most Americans give him low marks on just about everything. His approval numbers are under water on foreign policy, on healthcare, on immigration and on the economy, the single most important issue in this and most elections. And then there’s the war the president said would be over in a few weeks.

So 2026 isn’t exactly shaping up to be a banner year for the GOP.

But Democrats have problems of their own.

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…

I have been and still am a fan of Bill O'Reilly but I agree he goes easier on President Trump than on others who display behavior similar to that of our president. My opinion is that to behave differently would hinder his access to information he may otherwise not have. What say you? — Benn H.

Hi Benn. I certainly think access plays a role in it, but speaking in broad terms (because this is an industry-wide issue, and not unique to any one person), the primary consideration for many professional political-media commentators and organizations is audience-share.

I think we can learn a lot from Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott’s “respect the audience” business philosophy. It basically comes down to telling viewers (in this case the Fox audience) what they want to hear… rather than the sometimes hard, fair-and-balanced truths they do not want to hear. Bernie has argued that Scott’s model is actually the opposite of respecting the audience, and he’s absolutely right. If you’re in the news business, respecting your audience means leveling with them, and at least trying to be fair (aka using single-standards) in your coverage.

Honesty, earnestness, and fairness — however — can drive viewers away. Suzanne Scott is well aware of this. In an internal email in the wake of the 2020 election (which later went public thanks to the Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit), she infamously complained about (and scolded) Fox hosts and reporters (including Neil Cavuto) who were, on-air, responsibly shooting down Trump’s unsubstantiated “stolen election” claims. Scott was upset because a lot of Fox viewers — who desperately wanted to believe that Trump could only lose if the election was stolen — were turning off Fox in large numbers, and switching over to Newsmax (who was playing faster and looser with the “stolen election” nonsense). She also complained that fact-checking was “bad for business” because “the audience is furious.” That point alone speaks volumes.

Though the 2020 election drama was perhaps an extreme example, her email offered the public a very revealing look at how the right-wing media operates in the era of Trump, including their fears, pressures, motivations, priorities, etc. Those business considerations, by the way, are why Fox News sidelined Bernie a few years earlier. The Fox audience was outraged by Bernie’s honest, fair criticisms of Trump, so the network pulled him off the air (for a year!) until his contract ran out.

But it’s not just Fox. It’s how a large majority of the political-media operates, to varying degrees. Chris Stirewalt (who was famously fired from Fox News for correctly calling the 2020 race for Joe Biden) spelled all of this out in his book, Broken News. These individuals and organizations know what their audience wants, and they know what will keep them coming back for more. So, to stay successful, they give their audience those things good and hard. They’re also keenly aware of how much (and what type of) intra-tribe criticism their audience will tolerate… and they’re careful to stay on the right (aka safe) side of that line.

This is a proven business model for sure (Scott is still Fox News’ CEO, even after the $787.5 million settlement with Dominion). Many people (both talented and untalented) have made a lot of money using it. What it requires, however, are lots of double-standards and a great deal hypocrisy (which, unfortunately, most political consumers don’t care about anymore).

So now James Clyburn has joined Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and other non-DSA Democrats in jumping on the “pack the Court” bandwagon, or at least being open to it, and at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if supporting Court packing, becomes a litmus test for Democrats running in 2028. (I don’t think Clyburn himself is running, but Buttigieg, Harris and Newsom all are, and his badge of approval obviously would give a big boost to a candidate).

I have also started to see some fringe right-wing pundits stating that Democrats are obviously going to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance, so Republicans should do it first.

I must even admit that I am starting to think the main problem with Court expansion is the obvious incentive for both sides to keep doing it until we wind up with 99 Justices on the Court. But I am starting to wonder, if say, a Constitutional Amendment was passed that fixes the number of Justices at 13, that might eventually make it less politicized because the confirmation of a single Justice would be much less likely to completely change the ideological make up of it.

So, do you expect to see Court packing actually happen in your lifetime? If so, do you think it will be started off by Democrats or Republicans? — Aylene W.

I would be surprised to see court-packing in my lifetime, Aylene, but it’s well within the realm of possibility. It would be perfectly legal, and can be enacted through the regular legislative process.

If it were to happen, I think it would most likely come from the Democratic Party, being that the Supreme Court currently has a conservative tilt, and likely will for the foreseeable future. Also, as you point out, Democratic leaders are the ones making most of the hay about it… though it may well just be a political/electoral ploy to excite the base. People may remember that Biden talked about court packing too, but nothing ever came of it while he was in office.

Personally, I’m against court packing. I think nine justices make sense, and see no reason, beyond political/partisan interests, to change it.

How hard did you laugh at the House passing a resolution officially condemning and denouncing socialism "in all its forms”? — Ben G.

Yeah, I took it about as seriously as O.J. Simpson’s vow to “catch the real killers.”

As I keep arguing, Ben: Between the DSA, and Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, both parties have been remarkably accepting of socialism.

Scott Bessent this week blamed Ukraine (not the Iran War) for high gas prices. Do you think he actually believes that? — Alex D.

No, I don’t. And even if one wanted to make a superficial argument that Ukraine targeting Russia’s energy assets, in defense of their country, is contributing to already high gas prices, the blame for that falls on Russia (the unprovoked invader of a sovereign country). Not Ukraine.

Bessent made that statement on Fox & Friends, which is apparently President Trump’s favorite show. In other words, Bessent was speaking to an audience of one. And because Ukraine is a favorite whipping boy of the president’s, he chose to throw them under the bus instead of telling the truth.

Sir John —recently country / western music star Jelly Roll hosted the Jimmy Kimmel show for the week. While there, he made some rather crude and nasty jokes about President Trump, which enraged much of Jelly Roll’s conservative Christian fan-base (some of whom called for boycotts, while others labeled him a “fake Christian and a hypocrite”).

At first, Jelly Roll was defiant and encouraged the boycott. However by the time his final night of guest hosting rolled around, he gave a much more humble defense about making jokes about presidents who should be “able to take” a few jokes, while he simultaneously reiterated his Christianity and emphasized that mercy should include Democrats and Republicans, emphasizing that everyone is entitled to mercy. Well…okay. Personally I’d never even heard of Jelly Roll until the conservative pundits brought up some clips of his infamous anti-Trump monologue, and I add that I agree philosophically with Jelly Roll’s points, and of course I can’t boycott somebody I never heard of.

What I do question is his sincerity on the final broadcast. If he truly was comfortable with angering his fan-base, then why did he give a semi-apologetic defense of himself on the final show? It never worked for the Dixie Chicks with conservatives, nor did it work for J.K. Rowling with the liberals (although Rowling was never apologetic about her views on the trans culture, she has emphasized that she still leans left politically.). I ask you—- is it brave for artists to crap on their fan base? Is it wise!? Is it cowardly & hypocritical for them to try and half-heartedly justify themselves afterwards? —“Jelly Roll Damage Control” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. Like you, I had never heard of Jelly Roll. I also don’t like Country music, don’t like Jimmy Kimmel (or his show), and am not motivated at all to get on YouTube and seek out the singer’s anti-Trump monologues (or his “humble defense” of those monologues). As I wrote a while back, I stopped caring about celebrities weighing in on politics a long time ago.

I’ll just make a few broad points, to hopefully satisfy your question:

• I think organized boycotts over stuff like this are pretty lame. If an individual doesn’t want to support an artist or entertainer, because they object to something that person said, fine. It’s a free country. No one’s forcing anyone to give such people their money. But taking on an activist role over it strikes me as a performative display of self-importance. These aren’t elected leaders, or public policy proposals. They’re entertainers.

• If someone wants to question someone else’s Christianity, based on that individual telling some “crude and nasty jokes,” they’re certainly free to do that. But if they go that route, it would be great if they used that same standard for other individuals, who at least claim to be a Christian, when they do the same type of thing. Otherwise, the objection isn’t to the conduct, but rather the specific individual displaying that conduct.

• It’s often (but not always) professionally unwise for an entertainer to publicly express his or her political views — especially if those views are sharp and divisive. It can run the risk of costing them money and opportunities. If someone goes that route, I suppose it could be considered “brave” (depending on the circumstance), and “less brave” if they later try and walk back their comments. But — like I said — I can’t bring myself to care about stuff like this anymore.

Til next week, Emperor.

Share

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

One of the frustrations of writing from a conservative perspective in the Trump era is having to sometimes remind yourself that the conservative positions you’ve long maintained — which were previously understood (and largely shared) by your fellow righties — have since been forgotten by a significant number of people who still think of themselves as conservatives. In some cases, they may have never truly explored those positions in the first place.

As I wrote in my last column, this really shouldn’t be surprising. Though the views I subscribe to broadly defined the mainstream conservative movement for close to 60 years, they’ve largely gone undefended over the last decade — at least by those with large public platforms. Few Republican leaders seem interested in them now, and the self-described conservatives who funnel outrage to millions every week (on cable news, popular podcasts, and social-media) are mostly focused on Trump sycophancy, culture-war battles, and otherwise owning the libs.

Gone are the days of Charles Krauthammer as a revered thought-leader on the American Right. Now, smug, know-nothing whataboutists like Jesse Watters rule the roost.

Philosophical foundations, including those that have led to sustained periods of great success and prosperity, can only last so long on muscle-memory. Without gatekeepers and others willing to debate and persuade potential converts on conservative ideas, people were bound to forget them, and fall for the allure of personality-based populism — the success of which is measured not by conservation, enduring success, or the betterment of society… but rather grievance, attitude, and tribal solidarity.

Case in point, our national debt recently flew past the $40 trillion mark. The United States is now spending more on interest payments (to service that debt) than on national defense. Our major entitlement programs are just a few years away from insolvency. Our cost of living is through the roof. Executive abuses and federal corruption have become normalized. And seemingly every week, we’re learning more about the poor planning and mismanagement behind the ongoing Iran War (along with the U.S. vulnerabilities it has exposed).

These are serious, substantive issues. And yet a big focus of our president and his loyal defenders, at least at the moment, is finding more ways to further demonize and screw up our relationship with Canada — one of our closest, safest, and most mutually beneficial allies.

No, I’m not talking about the dopey “Lake America” trolling (though the Right’s jubilation over that juvenile nonsense goes to my larger point). I’m referring to the latest round of Trump’s trade war. Despite the economic damage it has caused to our country, much of the effort being deemed illegal, and all of it amounting to an assault on the longtime conservative tenet of free trade, Trump’s appetite for punishing our allies (often at America’s expense) appears as strong as ever.

As we learned a few months ago from our president’s 2025 financial disclosure, Trump, unlike an overwhelming majority of Americans, has personally made a lot of money off his tariffs. But his mistreatment of our allies clearly runs much deeper than a warped view of international trade.

In a recent Q&A, a subscriber to this website asked if Trump’s latest abuse of Canada stemmed from his “failed excursion into Iran,” and the emotional need to “bully” someone who he could do so with “relative impunity.” While I think there may be something to that, the problem (as Ukraine, South Korea, Greenland, Denmark, and other countries can attest to) is much broader.

While Trump treats anti-America dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un with fawning praise and respect, he takes the opposite tact with many of America’s friends and free-world partners, casting them as leeches and ingrates who only take advantage of the United States’ outsized role in the world order.

I recently spoke about this to Bobby Miller, a commentator and foreign policy scholar from Georgetown University.

“President Trump… has a tendency to do this with a lot of our allies,” Miller told me during the interview. “And while this sort of bravado might sound appealing, superficially appealing — you know, ‘We’re the boss’ sort of machismo; ‘We’re telling our allies how to behave, and they better be supplicants of ours…’ I think the fundamental problem, something that President Trump misunderstands, is that one of the keys to American hegemony — one of the reasons why we have achieved so much... is that we don't treat allies like supplicants. We treat them as equals.”

This is one of those positions that I think most conservatives (and probably most Americans) not only used to understand, but also understood the purpose of. It’s more than a matter of honor (though honor is very important too).

Miller was kind enough to lay it out. “There’s something called mutually beneficial exchanges… There doesn’t need to be this adversarial relationship with our allies, where we’re extracting something. We both can benefit.” He also described how “allies allow us to project power into areas of the world where we aren’t always physically present.”

Miller says that the president’s needless disparagement and punishment of our allies has many of them questioning American resolve — a trend he believes started under Obama, and has only gotten worse under Trump. When allies start to view the U.S. as unreliable (or potentially even hostile), Miller argued, their strategic plan changes. They begin to hedge their bets, either by building more amicable relationships with bad actors on the world stage (including sworn enemies of the United States), or by seeking strategic independence.

That latter may sound good to some, ceded Miller, but he believes that view is short-sighted. He says that if U.S. allies go their own way, their strategic autonomy may well run contrary to U.S. interests.

“Having this vast alliance network,” he added, “has been of immense benefit to the United States… A lot of Americans have taken this world order for granted, and how beneficial the post-1945 arrangement has been for the United States.”

He’s right. And if the Trump era has proven anything, it’s that millions of Americans have taken all kinds of things for granted. Our next president, if he or she has any sense at all, will invest a lot of time in rebuilding our strategic alliances.

Share

“For farmers it is a constant battle, keeping birds away from their rice seed.”

In 1981, approximately 100 waterfowl — mostly ducks and geese — were found dead or dying in ua rice field near Sweet Lake in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. They’d been poisoned by the illegal use of a pesticide called Azodrin.

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News, including worries over how humans might be affected by the poison.

Let me know what you think about my farmer attire for the piece. 😉

On a side note, all uses of Azodrin were discontinued in the United States by the late 1980s.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the loss of Dolly Parton, and what she meant to our country.

Share

Read more

Remember when Republicans used to trash Democrats for playing the victim card? Remember when the very word “victim” was practically synonymous with whiny and weak?

Women were victims of toxic masculinity, we were told. People of color were victims of systemic racism. Left-wing college kids were victims of words and ideas that made them feel threatened.

Republicans wanted no part of that.

They weren’t whiny and weak like those sensitive lefties. Republicans didn’t wilt because somebody said something they didn’t like. Republicans weren’t crybabies.

At least that was the theory.

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: I am reading the interesting book, “Suicidal Empathy” by Gad Saad. Early in the book, Saad describes four key principles of an ethical journalist as described by The Society of Professional Journalists. Two of these are “Seek Truth and Report It”, and “Minimize Harm.” But what if the truth harms a particular group? Should you refrain from sharing it or obfuscate key features to “minimize harm”? No sooner did I read this than the story of black Cambridge University professor Jason Arday’s suicide made the news. Arday was under heavy scrutiny for rampant plagiarism, a very suspect back story, and other aspects of his life that did not pass basic fact checking. Cambridge University held a vigil for Arday, and the participants mostly blamed the British press for racistly noticing Arday’s suspect personal and academic record. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist, but you’re the professional writer. Where do you stand? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. Again, I apologize for not seeing this question last week, when you originally asked it.

I haven’t read “Suicidal Empathy,” but the “minimize harm” part you describe does strike me as odd, at least in the journalistic sense. I can think of many scenarios in which attempting to minimize the harm of a story could prevent the necessary truth from coming out.

As for Arday, it’s a tragic story for sure. I can think of certain instances of suicide, in which I do place some partial blame on others, but this isn’t one of them. Revealing that someone in a position of public trust is a fraud isn’t unethical. I’m sure there are better comparisons, but when journalist Brian Williams was exposed for his many false accounts, pretty much no one felt he should be shielded from hard criticism and professional accountability. Unfortunately, Arday handled the fallout much differently than Williams did.

Any thoughts on the passing of Dolly Parton and Tim Curry this week. — Alex D.

Only that both were pop-culture icons, and that Parton was widely beloved for her kindness, generosity, and charitable giving. Unlike lots of people, I never had any particular fan-affection for either of them. Their movies weren’t really my thing, and I was never into Country music, but my sympathy certainly goes out to their families and friends.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump’s trade war has resulted in the United States now paying 75% more for aluminum than the rest of the world. Why are we still doing this crap? The tariffs have done nothing but hurt our country. — Ben G.

We’re still doing this, Ben, because Trump thinks tariffs are super cool, and he loves treating our allies like dirt (even at the expense of our own country). We also know now that he personally makes a good amount of money through stock trades, as a result of his tariff announcements and other central-planning efforts. One more possible explanation, at least in regard to Canada, is covered in the next question…

Questions for the Friday Q&A:

1. Do you attribute Trump’s newly revised bullying of Canada and South Korea a return to “Trump’s Greatest Hits” after his failed excursion into Iran? In other words, like a classic bully, he backed down (while continuing to talk tough) when someone (Iran) stood up to him, and then returned to someone he could bully with relative impunity (Canada, and to a lesser degree, South Korea)? I’m expecting him to bring out the “we need to control Greenland” screed next week.

2. Do you and Bernie think the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating DSA candidates in competitive districts/states, thus making the GOP candidate come across as the more reasonable choice?

3. How concerned are you that Trump will try to thwart the results of the mid-terms if things don’t go his way, for example declaring a National Emergency, seizing voting machines, etc... ?

— John M.

Hi John. I’ll answer one question at a time…

Bullying our allies

You’re broadly right about Trump’s treatment of U.S. allies. He loves to publicly humiliate them, treat them like ingrates, and needlessly punish them economically and/or through the denial of previously pledged support. He thinks it makes him look tough and strong. In reality, it hurts our country (both economically and geopolitically), and compels good foreign actors to build or strengthen ties with bad foreign actors. I can’t emphasize how damaging this has been to the United States, while Trump flatters, fawns over, and makes unbelievable concessions to sworn enemies of America (like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un).

As for whether this latest round of bullying Canada, and now South Korea, stems from Trump trying to revitalize his “tough and strong” persona after ending up in an embarrassing stalemate with Iran, I think it’s entirely possible. Trump’s ego and self-interest dictates almost every decision he makes.

The Democrats snatching defeat from victory with DSA nominees

I assume, John, that you’re referring to 2028, since I don’t think any DSA candidates have been nominated in swing districts/states this year (unless you count Abdul El-Sayed, who isn’t technically a DSA candidate).

So, do I think that DSA candidates can lose winnable seats for Democrats in 2028? Yes, I do. I think we might also see some saner GOP candidates in 2028, with Trump on his way out (and less interested in purging non-conformists from the party). Then again, voters may be so sick of Trump and the GOP by November of 2028 that there could be an electoral bloodbath-victory for the Dems… no matter what.

Trump trying to thwart the midterms

I’m not terribly concerned about it, John, mainly because Trump’s name isn’t on the ballot. As I’ve argued a number of times, I don’t think Trump really cares about the GOP Congress, and whether Republicans hold a majority. In fact, I think he sort of likes the (false) narrative that other Republicans can’t win unless he’s on the ballot.

Trump has proven that he’s more than willing to try and overturn a U.S. election when he loses one. But I very much doubt he’d bother to put forth the effort for other Republicans. Then again, when I give Trump the benefit of the doubt on something, he often proves me wrong.

Sir John — apparently there is some backlash over “a secret meeting” between Hakim Jeffries and Jared Kushner. Any idea what this meeting was about? Are there some shenanigans going on politically? — “Behind Closed Door” regards from The Emperor

I think the most likely explanation, as suggested by the reporting, is that Trump knows the GOP will lose the House in the midterm elections, and his administration is trying to gauge what kind of relationship he may have with the Democratic Congress at that time.

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was interested in trying to work some backdoor deals with the Democrats — perhaps something along the lines of vowing to sign big bills they want passed in exchange for minimizing congressional investigations into him and his partners/allies.

People forget that when the Dems won back the House during Trump’s first term, Trump caved to their wishes multiple times, just to avoid a fight. (Like the Dems, Trump’s a big-government guy, and couldn’t care less about restraining spending). This time, he’d have even more motivation to give them what they want: self-preservation.

Editor’s Note: The below question from Bob H. was trimmed for length (though it’s still fairly long):

Last week Bill O’Reilly ranted against Sen. Ossoff for an off-color remark he made about a WH aide. O’Reilly called him a guttersnipe at least twice. He said Sen. Ossoff was a despicable human being. He looked into the camera and raged with obvious vitriol “Is this who you want representing you?,” presumably addressing Georgia voters. Not an exact quote, but close enough. O’Reilly then said he’d vote for Putin if he were running against Sen. Ossoff. Days later, when Chris Cuomo, called O’Reilly out for this, he said maybe he’d stay home if Putin ran against Sen. Ossoff. Really?

On his Monday show, O’Reilly again ranted against Ossoff, again calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person. O’Reilly said character matters. Over the last 10 days, O’Reilly must have devoted at least 30 minutes on his show, on Cuomo’s show, and on Leland Vitter’s show to angrily tear into Sen. Ossoff for supposedly being a guttersnipe and a despicable person.

When O’Reilly went on Chris Cuomo’s show, Cuomo rebuked O’Reilly for going bonkers against Sen. Ossoff but saying nothing about President Trump, who does the same thing on a regular basis. Cuomo’s point was that O’Reilly, who claims to be a fair-minded journalist who doesn’t play favorites while claiming that almost every other commentator is dishonest, O’Reilly was being hypocritical by spending so much time angrily tearing into Sen. Ossoff, calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person and putting him in league with Putin, but not doing anything near comparable with Trump.

Cuomo said that O’Reilly “says nothing” about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. Here, he was wrong. Actually, O’Reilly says VERY LITTLE about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. In one segment he said “Why bother with that” (almost an exact quote) implying that such talk obscures his message, in another segment he said if he wants to protect his legacy he must stop doing that, in another segment he said he must put stop to it or it’ll harm him. In other words, O’Reilly NEVER angrily lambastes Trump him for demeaning women for just doing their jobs. O’Reilly said this with NO vitriol as with Sen. Ossoff ‘s singular comment. Rather, O’Reilly was giving Pres. Trump advice to help him.

President Trump demeans women regularly for just doing their job. As two examples, he told a female reporter “Shut up Piggy,” and he repeatedly demeans reporter Kaitlyn Collins at press conferences and once at the WH Correspondence dinner. Did Mr. O’Reilly rant on and on against President Trump about this? Did he call President Trump a guttersnipe even once? Did O’Reilly tear into President Trump with vitriol for being a despicable person? Did he put him in a league with Putin?

O’Reilly emphasizes that Ossoff is a sitting U. S. Senator. But Trump is a sitting U. S. President!

In fact, on one occasion O’Reilly said that President Trump’s bombast doesn’t bother him, “maybe it should, but it doesn’t.” Almost an exact quote. On another occasion O’Reilly essentially told viewers that they should focus on his policies, NOT on the “crazy things” he says. O’Reilly has NEVER angrily torn into President Trump, not by ANY stretch.

In a later episode, O’Reilly tried to patch his hypocrisy by saying that he said these personal attacks “on both sides” must stop. But this is not what O’Reilly said. And he claims to be an honest broker? — Bob H.

Hi Bob. I think your analysis is largely (or even entirely) correct. In fact, earlier this week, I happened to see a heated News Nation debate on this very topic between Cuomo and O’Reilly. I’m not a fan of Cuomo (nor O’Reilly) but Cuomo correctly pointed out, as you just did, that O’Reilly is being an enormous hypocrite on Ossoff’s comments.

Like I said last week, what Ossoff said was cheap, needless, and absolutely worthy of criticism. He was clearly implying that Trump and Natalie Harp were having an affair. O’Reilly, as you described, went absolutely ballistic over it. But as you and Cuomo pointed out, O’Reilly never takes that same tact (or anything close to it) when Trump says or does far worse (which happens on a regular basis). Instead, on those occasions when O’Reilly decides to weigh in on Trump’s bad behavior, he very calmly argues that it’s not in Trump’s political interest to conduct himself in such a manner. No strong condemnation. No anger. No vitriol. Just polite advice from a chum and admirer.

O’Reilly has never held Trump to the standards he holds Democrats, media-liberals, and other Trump critics to (nowhere close), despite Trump being the leader of a major political-party and the president of the United States. The notion that he’s a fair arbiter when it comes to Trump is patently absurd.

Share

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

“I believe that you should do everything possible for someone you love — not because they can hear you or see you, but because you love them.”

In April 1975, shortly after she turned 21, Karen Ann Quinlan fell into a coma she would never wake up from. Doctors initially refused her parents’ request to have her disconnected from her ventilator, leading to a lawsuit by her parents, and high-profile legal, moral, and cultural debates over the “right to die” controversy in the United States.

There was even a TV-movie on the family’s story, starring Brian Keith.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled that Quinlan’s ventilator could be removed. But to the surprise of everyone, Quinlan continued to breathe on her own. She remained, however, in a persistent vegetative state — kept alive by a feeding tube.

I covered the ongoing story for the CBS Evening News in 1981, which included an interview with her family, and a summary of ongoing court challenges.

Quinlan would pass away a little over four years later, from complications from pneumonia.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about journalists who fear covering stories on trans athletes, the GOP’s continued movement leftward, and whether President Trump should campaign for Republicans in the midterms.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

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 how illiberal liberals can be and how cowardly liberal journalists can be, consider the plight of Seattle Times sports columnist Matt Calkins.

Calkins recently wrote a column from the point of view of two female athletes who were opposed to competing against biological males. He was trying to make the point, he says, “that supporting the separation of biological females and males doesn’t automatically make you transphobic, so let’s stop throwing those labels around.”

In a progressive place like Seattle, suggesting that biological males should not compete against girls and young women, is considered controversial.

“I spoke to people attending a rally in support of Sophie Cunningham,” Calkins writes. [The WNBA] Fever guard had recently taken a stance against biological males competing in women’s/girls sports, and a few dozen folks showed up to express their gratitude for her position.”

The column never saw the light of day. Editors spiked it. That’s journalistic lingo for … they killed. They refused to run it.

It wasn’t the first time editors at the Seattle Times refused to run a column Calkins wrote challenging liberal orthodoxies in the world of sports.

He had had enough, so he quit.

I have a special fondness and a special respect for Matt Calkins because what he went through I also had gone through, a few years earlier. When I was a correspondent on the HBO program “Real Sports” I also had a story spiked. It also was about trans athletes.

The story was about a trans woman college student who ran in long-distance races. Everybody in the “Real Sports” chain of command had approved the story: I did all the interviews; the producer signed off on it; the executive producer approved it; and Bryant Gumbel, the host of “Real Sports” who has the final say on everything, saw the story and gave it a green light.

The story was fair, objective and conveyed opinions from both sides of the issue. There was no in-house controversy. That apparently wasn’t good enough.

One day before the story was to air we got an email from the trans athlete saying she had changed her mind, that she didn’t want to be part of the story, and that if we ran it, with her in it, she would sue us.

This prompted more than a little urgency. The story was scheduled to run the next day. In a hastily organized conference call with Gumbel, the executive producer and me, Gumbel said: Normally I would say fuck off, we’ll see you in court — but we have new corporate owners and we don’t know how they’ll react (to a controversy involving trans athletes).

And he didn’t want to take any chances.

So over my very strong objection, Gumbel and his executive producer said let’s hold off on running the story — for now. They left me with the distinct impression that some version of the story would run on our next show, one month later.

It never did. They spiked it … out of fear.

What made their decision so disheartening was that “Real Sports” was a courageous show that took on the most powerful institutions in the world of sports. We did tough stories on the International Olympic Committee, on the NCAA, and on the NFL.

But we were afraid to run a story about a young trans woman who ran long-distance races in college.

Back to Seattle: In his farewell column, Matt Calkins says that, “I’ve always thought that it was a columnist’s duty to generate discussion on the most hot-button issues. To avoid such topics was to leave the reader shortchanged. I guess in the end, I just didn’t feel like I could do my job properly anymore.”

I thought the same thing about the role of journalism. We shouldn’t be afraid to run stories on controversial issues. That was the essence of “Real Sports.”

Not long after Gumbel and his executive producer demonstrated what I saw then, and still see now, as timidity, as cowardice … I quit, after 22 years working there.

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…

John, Just say Pres. Trump does not complete his term due to medical reasons and JD Vance is sworn in as president. Who do you see as Vance's choice of VP? I can envision this scenario truly happening next year. Trump's health is tanking. — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. If Trump is unable to finish this term, and JD Vance takes over as president, Vance would get to nominate his successor. However, that individual could only assume office after confirmation by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In other words, if Trump’s hypothetical early-departure comes after January of 2027, Vance’s nomination would need confirmation votes from Democrats, in addition to Republicans (since the Dems will hold the House and possibly even the Senate at that time).

For that reason, Vance couldn’t get away with nominating one of his half-baked postliberal buddies like Tucker Carlson or Kevin Roberts. He’d have to instead choose someone who could get enough Democratic votes, like Marco Rubio (who’s still widely respected in Congress), though I’m not sure Rubio would want the job. Regardless, because of the need for bipartisan support, Vance’s theoretical vice president would have to be of higher quality than Trump’s current one.

All this extreme far left Socialist nonsense makes great news. Eliminating prisons, abolishing ICE, eliminating the Senate, open borders, eliminating the Electoral College, etc. Does anybody rationally really think for one second that any of these policies would get legislated into actual law. It’s like “Medicare for All”. Estimates are that would cost 4 trillion dollars. Politicians will say anything, but nobody ever asks them hard questions on HOW they are going to do it. I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care. — Rob O.

You bring up a very good point, Rob. While I have little doubt that the DSA crowd would love to get all of the things you listed legislated into law, there are a number of obstacles standing in their way, including public opinion, the separation of powers, and divided government (which, by the way, is another reason why the Senate filibuster should be preserved).

My bigger concern is with a U.S. president abusing his or her executive power, sidestepping Congress, and making radical changes that cause lots of damage until the Supreme Court eventually has to step in to deal with the mess. We saw this with Biden’s student-loan forgiveness venture, and Trump’s sweeping tariffs (which our country is still feeling the pain from). I’m assuming the courts will also eventually have to deal with Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, which — as I keep pointing out — is far closer to textbook socialism than anything the DSA crowd has thus far been able to pull off.

I think your last sentence, Rob, is particularly important: “I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care.” I think that by and large, today’s voters care a lot less about policies and competence than they do grievance, attitude, culture-war stuff, and personalities… which is why so many of them are willing to vote for unfit loons who peddle terrible ideas.

Greetings Sir John—well it looks the residents of Seattle are circulating a recall petition for Mayor Katie Wilson. I seriously do wonder how many of them voted for her. I also wonder what the hell they expected when she didn’t hide what she is. I also wonder if they’ll be foolish enough to put somebody else in there similar after she’s gone. Your thoughts? Sing along with me. — “The dumbest mayor you’ll ever see is in Seattle… and the voters the bluest fools in Seattle… like a whiny spoiled child… acting dumb, fool… and wild…”. Perry Como Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story at all, Emperor, but I think that the last part of my response to Rob above probably applies to your point as well.

What are your thoughts on Ron DeSantis' political aspirations after Florida's election for Governor takes place? — Sharon H.

I have no idea what he plans on doing, Sharon, but few political analysts are bullish on him running for president again. He apparently did a lot of political damage to himself with Republican voters by challenging Trump last time… despite it not being much of a “challenge” (he could barely bring himself to criticize Trump until the eleventh hour of the primary, and then immediately fell in line behind him after dropping out).

My guess is that DeSantis will end up in a future Republican presidential administration, or possibly even the current administration before all is said and done (now that he’s re-prostrated himself for Trump). He’d honestly be an asset, because, like Rubio (and few others in this administration), he’s a smart, competent leader who takes his public responsibility seriously.

What’s your take on the whole Jon Ossoff blowup over his “Trump wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” comment? — Alex D.

Interesting you should ask this, Alex. The other day, I weighed in on this topic on Twitter/X, and the post went a little viral:

I received hundreds of responses to it. Some people blindly accused me of defending Trump, ignoring Trump’s bad behavior, and being a MAGA guy … which makes absolutely no sense if you actually read the entire tweet… or pretty much anything else I’ve written about Trump over the last eleven years. There are plenty of hypocrites out there when it comes to Trump’s conduct (I addressed them in my tweet), but I’m not one of them.

Many others (and several of the same people) insisted there was nothing cheap or needless about what Ossoff said. They claimed he was making a general statement about Trump and his inner circle of sycophants. I very much disagree with that take. Ossoff was clearly implying that Trump and his staffer, Natalie Harp, are having an affair.

Nick Catoggio of The Dispatch (who isn’t a Trump defender either) mirrored my thinking in a recent column:

…if Ossoff wanted to make a point about Trump being surrounded by sycophants, there are scores of names he might have dropped that are more prominent than [Harp’s]. We’ve all watched those Cabinet meetings where the president goes around the table to receive North Korean-style fealty from the likes of Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth. Why not mention them instead?

The senator knew what he was doing. (He’s reportedly quite mindful about the online “virality” of his speeches.) Harp is young, blond, pretty, and constantly by the president’s side. And Trump is a known philanderer with a well-earned reputation for lechery. Ossoff didn’t explicitly accuse the two of having an affair, but he didn’t need to, as his audience’s boisterous reaction to her name proved. The insinuation was clear enough.

…

Ossoff’s jab was sexist, implying that Harp’s boss keeps her around for extracurricular reasons rather than for her impressive talent at curating the paranoid disinformation he consumes. To accuse a woman of sleeping with her superior is to invite the world not to take her seriously, which is unfair when there are so many better reasons not to take Natalie Harp seriously. The fact is that there’s no evidence of a sexual relationship between her and Trump.

…you should frown upon a U.S. senator from the Party of Norms doing his part to normalize a stereotype about attractive young female aides who work in politics. Ossoff might limit his own insinuations to Harp, but not everyone who watched the clip of him speaking will. Some will find moral license in his bad example to demean other professional women toward whom they bear a grudge.

In a recent GOP Senate primary debate, Darline Graham (Lindsey’s sister) admitted that she doesn’t really know anything about foreign policy. Shouldn’t that be a basic requirement for running for the U.S. Senate? — Ben G.

Yes, it should. I had no real problem with Darline Graham being appointed to finish out her late brother’s term, but her actually running for a full 6-year term (with Trump’s support) is ludicrous. She has neither a clue nor interest in what the job entails. As conservative commentator Brad Polumbo argued, this is the “emotional equivalent of a DEI pick for Republicans”.

Share

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

Editor’s note: The volume on today’s clip is a little low, so you might need raise it on your device.

“What’s the reality, and what’s the myth?”

In my 2001 book, Bias, some of you may remember that I wrote about how many in the media heavily sensationalized and misrepresented the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. The inclination of a number of journalists was to exaggerate the threat to heterosexuals and non-drug users, in order to draw more mainstream attention, sympathy, and funding to the crisis.

It wasn’t the first time that I explored this topic. I covered it, years earlier, in this 1992 segment of 48 Hours.

Read more