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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

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

Read more

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

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

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

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

So what will they do with their power?

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

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

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

Read more

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

Share

Read more

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

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

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

If that’s not crazy, what is?

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

“Memories mean money.”

Nostalgia in advertising is pretty common these days, but back in 1985 it was still a novel approach — one being used quite successfully on wealthy baby boomers by Madison Avenue.

I did a report on the story for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss President Trump’s increasing vulgarity, the midterms, the “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, and the end of Stephen Colbert’s late night run.

Show Notes:

• Bernie’s column on Trump’s worsening language

• John’s column on the “Anti-Weaponization Fund”

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Earlier this year, shortly after the fifth anniversary of the January 6 attack, I had the opportunity to interview Vice President Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short. Short was inside the Capitol that day, alongside Pence, as Secret Service agents scrambled to protect the vice president and his family from rioters who were storming the building.

During our discussion, I brought up the topic of the alternative reality that President Trump continues to promote (and millions of Americans still subscribe to), that he won the 2020 presidential election, and that it was stolen from him. I asked Short if he believes the myth will live on for years to come in our country as a type of folklore, accepted and passed on by true believers (and charlatans alike) as conventional wisdom.

The bluntness of Short’s answer surprised me.

“I think, in many cases, the president has won,” he said. “Not only was he reelected, but in many cases, he’s revised the history of that day.”

Short and many others understand that, politically speaking, there was a big advantage to maintaining the ruse through the 2024 election. Admitting defeat would have put Trump in the same camp as former Republican nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, who retired their presidential aspirations after their respective general-election losses.

That’s typically how it works, after all — even for incumbents (as we remember with George H.W. Bush). The sense, by both the nominee and their party, is that they had their chance, it didn’t work out, and it’s time to go in a different direction. And of course, Trump and MAGA had a much harsher view of McCain and Romney, casting their losses as proof that they were eternal “losers” whose paths should never be followed again.

And yet, Trump, even with the huge advantage of incumbency, lost to Joe Biden — a far less impressive opponent than the one McCain and Romney lost to. Per tradition (and Trump’s own standards), he should have ridden off into the sunset as well.

But he didn’t, and his excuse for why he didn’t was that he’d never lost, and was therefore owed a second term. It was a profoundly dishonest and unpatriotic position (that led to terrible violence in the final days of his first term), but it ultimately kept him politically viable.

What Short had a harder time reconciling was why Trump has continued drawing media attention to the “stolen election” and January 6 since re-winning the White House (as he’s been doing for the last year and a half).

“Despite a lot of the president’s attributes and reasons that people support him,” Short said, “I think January 6 is not one of them.”

He’s right about that, but I think there’s a pretty clear-cut explanation: Trump’s insistence that the election was “stolen” was never primarily about politics. It was about his ego, and it continues to be.

For a malignant narcissist, losing to someone as feeble as Joe Biden carries with it a tremendous amount of psychological trauma. And because Trump can’t literally erase that defeat from the history books (despite his best efforts), the best he can do, while continuing the ruse, is punish those who stood in his way… and valorize those who supported him.

It’s really that simple.

It’s the reason why Trump pardoned close to 1,600 January 6 criminals (he calls them “patriots”) on his first day back in office, including hundreds who brutally assaulted police officers. It’s why he pardoned several members of his “stolen election” legal team and related allies. It’s why his DOJ is currently working to clear the legal records of convicted January 6 seditionists, who Trump had previously granted commutations. It’s why nearly $5 million was paid to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was justifiably shot and killed by a Capitol police officer as she was breaking through a barricaded hallway mere feet from fleeing members of Congress. It’s why hundreds of detailed January 6 criminal charges have been erased from the DOJ website. It’s why the GOP Congress, for years, held up the installation of a Capitol plaque commemorating the bravery and service of police officers who fought off insurrectionists that day. And it’s why many GOP leaders still deny what happened in the first place.

But as we discovered last week, even all those things weren’t enough. The Justice Department announced the establishment of an almost $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to pay restitution to people who feel they were political victims of “weaponization” or “lawfare” at the hands of the federal government.

The specific amount will be $1.776 billion — presumably because if you’re going to set up a slush fund for indefensibly advancing a personal agenda, and rewarding people who committed crimes in your name, you might as well add insult to injury by evoking the birth of our nation, and attempting to make it all sound patriotic.

To no one’s surprise, Congress won’t be involved in managing the fund, and won’t provide oversight. Who gets paid from it, and the amount they’ll be paid, will be decided by a five-person panel appointed by — wait for it — Trump’s former personal attorney, and acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche. Also unsurprisingly, Trump himself will have the power to fire panel members, and the federal government won’t be required to disclose which individuals receive money, and what amount they’ll receive.

What a deal!

The fund hasn’t been activated yet (it’s still being set up), but a whole bunch of shady folks are already announcing their intentions to apply for a piece of the pie. As expected, scores of pardoned January 6 criminals are among them, including the worst of the worst. Proud Boy leader, Enrique Tarrio, who Trump freed from a 22-year prison sentence for seditious conspiracy, plans to ask for millions. The same goes for Andrew Taake and Andrew Paul Johnson, whose criminal records include child sex crimes (Johnson’s currently serving life in prison for child molestation).

Other notable individuals preparing to fill out applications are Mark McCloskey (best known for pointing firearms at George Floyd protesters), George Santos, Rod Blagojevich, the soon-to-be released Tina Peters, and Mike Lindell (who’s looking to recoup $400 million that he says his pillow company lost as a result of his “stop the steal” stance). Even the One America News (OAN) network is considering getting in on the action, having faced costly legal trouble over its promotion of false election claims.

As a friend of mine said, “Toss a pile of money on the ground, and all the freaks come scrambling.”

If you happen to think the details of the Anti-Weaponization Fund sound glaringly corrupt and possibly even impeachable (the hypothetical equivalent of President Biden setting up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa and BLM rioters), just wait until you hear how the fund came to be…

Back in January, President Trump sued his own IRS, demanding they pay him $10 billion over his tax returns being leaked years earlier (by an IRS employee who plead guilty to the crime in 2023). IRS lawyers prepared a proper, compelling defense against the suit, but Trump’s DOJ never showed up in court to use the defense. In fact, the department put forth no legal argument whatsoever, despite, among other things, Trump filing the suit too late. The DOJ was essentially going to concede the case, and the $10 billion (compliments of U.S. taxpayers), to Donald Trump.

The judge presiding over the case was understandably very suspicious, and called on the DOJ and Trump’s attorneys to explain what in the heck was going on. It looked to her like the two sides were colluding rather than sitting on opposite sides of the complaint. The day before their explanation was due in court, Trump abruptly dropped his suit, and the DOJ immediately announced a “settlement” with the president that included him ending his money request, the DOJ apologizing to him, the IRS dropping any and all audits of Trump and his family, and — last but not least — the creation of the federal fund.

And because Trump’s attorneys dropped the case entirely, to be settled outside of court, there was no “settlement of record” for the judge to review. She’ll never receive her requested explanation for what had gone on between Trump’s legal team and the DOJ.

So, if you think the only recipients of big-dollar amounts from the clandestine Anti-Weaponization Fund will be January 6 criminals, disgraced former officials, and a hodgepodge of cartoon villains and cable-news flunkies, you may want to put a little more thought into that.

And if none of this bothers you as an American, why doesn’t it? Even if you’re someone who believes that President Trump is God’s gift to our nation, and that he has never lost an election, do you think that he, his family, and his allies should have license to loot the U.S. Treasury in this way?

If you do, I’d love to hear why.

Share

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of the Washington Post, recently said that President Trump was “more mature, more disciplined” in his second term.

Mr. Bezos might want to read his own newspaper for a different take on the president’s behavior.

The Post analyzed Mr. Trump’s speeches and social media posts and found that his “use of vulgar language, personal insults and self-aggrandizing rhetoric has increased markedly in his second term.”

Throughout our history, American presidents and presidential candidates have stayed clear of crude language, at least in public. They chose their words carefully to convey gravitas, to convey an impression that they were honorable people who understood the importance of decency.

Not Donald Trump. He doesn’t try to hide his crudeness, he shows it off — and has made it a central element of his political persona.

Mr. Trump has dropped F-bombs on national TV several times. And when he does, he doesn’t seem the least bit embarrassed. Vulgarity, to President Trump represents authenticity — something his MAGA fans believe run-of-the-mill politicians lack. Saying “fuck” in public, they believe, shows that he’s tough.

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to your questions…

John- With socialists, communists, and progressives winning elections for various positions in our country, do you perceive more violence and upheaval against THESE folks by the more conservative and traditional? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I’m not sure which “communists” you’re referring to (maybe I missed something). As for “socialists,” I’d argue that elements of both of today’s major parties are embracing tenets of socialism. Regardless, I get the gist of your question.

As I’ve stated before, I worry about political violence from both sides of the political spectrum (and in between), but the stuff we’ve seen from the Right over the past decade feels less tied to ideology than what we’ve seen from the Left. For example, the January 6 violence wasn’t aimed at socialists, communists, or progressives. It was a product of the “stolen election” hoax, and was aimed at the U.S. Congress (including Republicans members) and Vice President Mike Pence. Other, more isolated incidents have been motivated by bigotry.

So, I guess I’m not so much worried about political violence on the Right arising from lefties winning elections, as I am in reaction to conspiratorial B.S. and ethnic intolerance. That said, any political violence is of deep concern.

Editor’s note: The following question was submitted prior to Thomas Massie’s GOP primary loss.

So I have recently noticed a similar split forming in the Trump - critical conservative pundit space over Thomas Massie, as the one over Graham Platner. (He’s gotten at least one Strange New Respect piece from left leaning media too.) Curious where you stand.

Some, like Gregg Nunziata, advocate supporting him against a Trumpy primary challenger, as a rare Republican willing to publicly break with Trump at times. Others, like Kimberly Ross, advocate shunning him as an anti-Semite. (And yes, I did specifically pick these examples because they have both been on your podcast and probably agree about a lot, but not this.)

Also, do you think Massie even is anti-Semitic. The Dispatch recently published a Drucker piece on the primary that IMO glossed over the charge as Massie just being an isolationist opposed to maintaining ties to Israel, yet not only does he often ally with the Squad on anti- Israel bills, he also pals around with the likes of MTG and recently went on Tucker, both of whom I certainly see as anti - Semites who shouldn’t actually be embraced just because they’re now critical of Trump. Do you see Massie in the same camp, or not? — Alyene W.

Hi Aylene. I consider both Gregg and Kimberly friends. Like you said, they agree with each other often, and I agree with the two of them often. I’ll address each part of your question.

I think Graham Platner is a non-starter. The case Democrats and some Bulwark-types have been trying to make for him carries no weight with me, and it’s not just because it requires overlooking lots of things about Platner that should absolutely not be overlooked (some of which Bernie recently wrote about). It’s also predicated on the notion that Platner is somehow the “lesser of two evils.” He’s not, and here’s why: The Republican he’ll be running against (after he presumably wins the Democratic primary) is Susan Collins. And Susan Collins isn’t evil! Heck, she’s not even Trumpian. People may recall that she’s one of the few Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on his impeachment. Of course, for the Dems, this is all about winning the seat (at all costs), an not the quality or fitness of the person who holds that seat.

I didn’t read Gregg’s case for Massie, but I wouldn’t have voted for Massie (nor his MAGA opponents) in the GOP primary, and I don’t share that “strange new respect” for Massie (and MTG, Tucker, etc.) that some on the left have suddenly discovered. Massie is a longtime conspiracy freak who, among other things, whitewashed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his provocation of the Jan. 6 attack (as MTG and Tucker also did). I’m not going to suddenly find any of them admirable just because they opposed Trump on the Iran War or his handling of the Epstein files. And that’s before we even get to the antisemitic charges.

As for whether Massie is authentically an antisemite, I can’t read his mind, but the nature of his attacks evoking Israel (like claiming his primary opponents were in the pocket of the pro-Israel lobby), and — as you said — his associations with people who are more transparently antisemitic, certainly make him look like one.

Is Trump setting up a $1.8 billion taxpayer-paid slush fund to supposedly pay large sums of money to January 6 criminals a natural progression of the unchecked corruption we’ve seen over the last year and a half? — Ben G.

Yeah, pretty much, and it goes back further than that. I keep calling this the YOLO presidency, and the president’s going to keep upping the ante on what he thinks he can get away with, until he can no longer get away with it. I’m probably going to write a column about this next week, Ben, but this extraordinary abuse of power (that Republicans would rightly be screaming bloody murder over if it were Obama or Biden), has likely risen to the top of the Democrats’ impeachment list for after the midterms.

John, I am not great at math, so maybe you can help. How much of your soul do you have to sell to become a politician? Is there a fixed percentage, or does the price increase as you rise on the political ladder? — Benn H.

In today’s environment, that number is very high. And yes, the percentage does increase as you rise up the latter and become more powerful and consequential. It’s especially challenging right now for House and Senate Republicans to demonstrate any semblance of dignity, due the intense demands for servility from the party’s leader and his loyalists.

If you’re a high-ranking GOP leader, unless you’re willing to completely prostrate yourself for the president, you run a very risk of being driven out of politics and public service forever.

John: Bernie commented this week about Trump's increasing disconnect with the American voter. But what about Republican primary voters' disconnect with the rest of the country and even their own party? They continue to roll over and acquiesce to Trump's every whim and endorsement, which you outlined yourself this week with the ending of Sen. Bill Cassidy's career. Just yesterday in my home state of Texas, Trump endorsed for senate Ken Paxton, a despicable politician who has a great chance of losing in the general election. This despite John Cornyn being a 99% reliable Trump backer and senator with the respect, authority and support of his fellow Republican senators. Cornyn still has a decent chance at winning in this runoff, but the odds just got steeper. I usually stay away from blaming voters - specifically the Trump voters that get vilified by the left - for the country's problems, but I'm solidly in that space right now. — Steve R.

With very few exceptions, the vast majority of GOP primary voters still vote for whoever Trump tells them to vote for. It doesn’t matter how much the candidate sucks, or even what the candidate believes in (as long as they reliably kiss Trump’s butt). Ken Paxton is a perfect example. The guy is corrupt to the core (morally, ethically, legally, you name it). Because of that, he’s less likely to win the general election than John Cornyn (though he could certainly pull it off, being that Texas is a red state).

Like you, Steve, I find it extremely frustrating. Our nation faces serious challenges. We desperately need competent, responsible, quality people in positions of public leadership. But that’s not a priority for the modern Republican Party, and it often isn’t for the Democratic Party either. Like you, I place blame on primary voters (in addition to party leadership). If they wanted serious, qualified candidates, that’s who they would nominate.

Sir John: according to some liberal memes, Mayor Mamdani of New York has he actually fixed the economy and everything is just fine despite the Naysayers on the right. I’m skeptical because snippets and sound bites often omit facts. What’s say you? —“Mamdani Saves New York” Regards from The Emperor

Emperor, I came up with my own political meme a few years back:

Hope that helps!

Seriously though, there’s absolutely no reason to take any meme at face value. And they’re easily fact-checked with today’s AI tools (which I can’t recommend highly enough to you, Emperor). Something going viral online doesn’t make it factually correct.

Share

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

“This is going to be one dynamite company.”

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

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

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

Share

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I detailed back in January:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annoying is the right word, Ben.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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