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

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at a recent poll validating a troubling theme.

Share

Read more

Last week, I co-interviewed Reason magazine’s Stephanie Slade about her new book, Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right. For those unfamiliar with the term fusionism in the context of American politics, it refers to a conservative philosophical synthesis that combines traditionalist/social conservatism (which emphasizes virtue, moral order, and inherited traditions) with classical liberal or right-libertarian principles (which emphasize individual liberty, free markets, and limited government).

This philosophy is perhaps most commonly associated with Ronald Reagan and Reaganism, which defined the Republican Party in the 1980s. Its origins, however, go back decades earlier to Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley, and National Review magazine in the 1950s.

Unfortunately, one would be hard-pressed to now find anything more than remnants of fusionism on the American Right. Today’s GOP largely defines itself by personal allegiance to President Trump (and whatever he decides to do or say on any given day).

Historically speaking, however, Slade argues that fusionism’s decline began decades before Trump arrived on the political scene.

“I think Reagan was sort of the apotheosis moment,” Slade told me. “… In America, the conservatives are trying to conserve the principles and institutions of the American founding… And that meant a commitment within the conservative movement to this sort of classical liberalism — the separation of powers, the rule of law, limited government, free markets.”

Slade explained that Reagan’s espousal of these principles, and his landslide electoral victories, pulled the GOP into alignment with fusionism. However, after the end of the Cold War, she argues, there was a decline of interest in talking about and promoting fusionistic principles, along with liberty and virtue.

“That kind of all goes away,” said Slade, “and you end up with a Republican Party and a conservative movement that is really mostly focused on just acquiring political power, winning elections, getting our guys into office, and beating the left.”

Slade called it an “understandable mistake,” adding, “There was this sense after Reagan and after the fall of the Soviet Union that ‘Our ideas have been so clearly vindicated that surely we don’t have to spend all this time thinking and talking and debating and persuading of that. Who could possibly doubt this liberty/virtue synthesis is the recipe for a successful society?’ But it turns out over time that if you don’t do the hard work of tending to that philosophical foundation, it will erode.”

I think Slade is largely right, though I also think she’s being a little hard on the post-Reagan, pre-Trump conservative movement. After all, I was only 16 years old when Reagan left office, and I couldn’t have told anyone at that time, other than in very abstract terms, what principles Reagan stood for. That wasn’t Reagan’s fault, of course; he was a brilliant communicator. I just couldn’t have cared less about politics in my youth, and took many things (including American prosperity) for granted.

Like many kids in the 1980s, I was raised with generally conservative sensibilities, but my political conversion to Reagan conservatism (or fusionism, if you will) didn’t really take shape until I was close to the age of 30. It came with the help of Republican and conservative thought leaders of the post-Clinton era — the types of people who used to be welcome on Fox News. I found their ideas, passed on from decades earlier, persuasive and aligned with historical success.

In other words, the torch was still being carried… at least at that time.

That said, if I hadn’t become a news junkie after 9/11, I may have never opened myself up to the conservative principles and voices that ultimately resonated with me on an intellectual level. As the president of the United States, Reagan spoke to the entire country from their living room (though a small number of widely watched television networks), and sold a large majority of Americans on his vision. Conversely, a dozen years after he left office, I had to go looking for well-articulated conservative wisdom. Thankfully, I found it.

Regardless, what was left of Reagan conservatism by 2016 took a sharp nosedive with the election of Donald Trump. Though two-thirds of Republican voters wanted a different presidential nominee that year, enough ended up supporting Trump in the general election to get him across the finish line. At which point, Republican and conservative advocates of things like moral character and decency, inherited traditions (including our constitutional order), limited government, free trade, and the rule of law found themselves increasingly at odds with the party that used to defend all of the above.

Over the years that followed, if Reaganites didn’t surrender their principles and positions for Trump, and play the role of his unconditional defender, they were considered turncoats and pariahs. They were called “liberals” and “progressives,” and purged from their positions of influence, including public office and prominent right-wing media platforms.

We’re now a decade into the Trump era, and the effects of the American Right’s unwillingness to stand up for fusionistic principles — in favor of grievance and personality-fueled populism — are on daily display.

Yes, daily. And if you don’t believe me, just look at some things that happened over the weekend…

Capitulation to North Korea

President Trump announced that he ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “substantially reduce” the United States’ joint military exercises with longtime ally South Korea, citing his “very good relationship” with North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un. Trump argued that military exercises with South Korea are “totally inappropriate and hostile” to North Korea — who Trump called “unthreatening and respectful.”

The reality, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth. Just days ago, North Korea (who has long run concentration camps the size of Los Angeles, and routinely tortures and executes its own citizens) launched ballistic missiles at our allies, with no stated reason, and then threatened both the United States and South Korea. Pyongyang is actively aiding Russia in its war on Ukraine with missiles, ammunition, and even troops. Kim Jong Un has refused diplomatic talks with Trump and United States, while proceeding with his country’s nuclear weapons program.

It’s crazy that we’ve gone from boldly calling the communist Soviet Union an “evil empire,” and pushing strong policies to precipitate its collapse, to making life easier for perhaps the most brutal dictator on the planet, just because he found a way to personally charm Donald Trump.

But sadly, few on the Right seem to care.

Most Republicans now favor government price controls

54% of Republicans in a new CBS/YouGov poll said they approve of the socialist practice of government price controls. They join 62% of independents and 75% of Democrats.

“We have become economic illiterates,” remarked conservative commentator, Erick Erickson.

The Dispatch’s Stephen Hayes lamented, “Supporters of free markets have a lot of work to do...”

“There is a crisis in economics and history education,” wrote economist Jessica Riedl. “People hear this question and think ‘yes I'd like lower prices’ with no understanding of basic supply and demand, 1970s gas lines, life in central planning systems, etc. Even GOP voters no longer understand how markets work.”

Suffice to say, they “no longer understand” because no one’s reminding them.

In fact, President Trump has done just the opposite, advocating for price controls on prescription drugs and gasoline, and a cap on credit card interest rates — a sharp deviation from the pre-Trump, free-market-friendly, GOP platform.

And few on the Right seem to care.

A closer look at Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom

Thanks in large part to a Washington Post investigation into President Trump’s White House Ballroom expenditures, we now know the price-tag of the massive project: about one billion dollars.

Contrary to the president’s longtime contention that it would be paid for entirely by private donors, U.S. taxpayers are flipping most of the bill — roughly $500 million of it — without Congressional authorization. Those funds were diverted from the White House Military Office and the Secret Service. And since the construction has yet to be completed (due in part to a legal concerns surrounding Trump’s sidestepping of Congress), it’s possible the construction costs will continue to grow.

“Set aside the law for a moment,” responded Gregg Nunziata of the Society of the Rule of Law. “Does it seem right to you that a president should be able to tear down a wing of the White House, build a massive new structure forever changing the executive mansion, while spending a billion dollars of taxpayers funds, just on his own whim?”

The optics of the story have always been bad — a ruling-class vanity project at a time when average Americans have been struggling, for years, with high living costs. But between the violation of the separation of powers, possible illegality, lying to the public about who was flipping the bill, and what some (understandably) consider a desecration of The People's House, this fiasco would seem uniquely symbolic of what conservatives used to refer to as “runaway government.”

And yet… few on today’s Right care.

Now consider, again, that these were just weekend developments — essentially footnotes in the context of the much broader, persistent, foreign and domestic challenges we face as a nation — most of which are being ignored or exasperated at our top levels of government.

It’s neither “TDS” nor “leftist” to care about such things. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

But the problem is even worse than that. Former Reagan conservatives who’ve thrown in the towel — to, in their eyes, remain politically “relevant” or be a team player — are just part of the story. Another big part is the future of the American Right.

“You’ll have generations of young conservatives coming up who have never engaged with these ideas, and don’t really understand the philosophy that they’re supposed to be defending,” Stephanie Slade said during our interview. “They think all that matters is winning elections and owning the left. And that’s kind of how we ended up with the movement we have today.”

It’s a scary thought, and it should be far more concerning to the Right than the viral-video culture battles and tribal loyalties we invest an extraordinary amount of our time and passion in.

Our country would be best served by us actually caring again — caring and informing fellow Americans about big-picture issues that have political solutions… and thankfully blueprints for success.

I think we owe our nation and future generations that.

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.

Let’s face it — the Democratic Party’s leadership is moribund. The party’s energy, it’s excitement, is on the progressive left. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House, produce as much energy and excitement as nap time in a nursing home.

Van Jones, the CNN commentator, nailed it when he said that “The Democratic Party is now Blockbuster” — and referring to the young social democrats who have been winning recently, he said: “These kids are Netflix.”

The “Netflix” gang wants to fundamentally change America. By now you know their whacky, pie-in-the-sky laundry list: open borders, no prisons, defund the police and the defense department, abolish ICE, allow the federal government to take over major corporations. As for capitalism: They want to put a stake in its heart and bury it.

Despite all that, a Gallup poll found that while only 42 percent of Democrats view capitalism favorably — 66 percent have a favorable view of socialism.

I’m guessing that a lot of voters who support democratic socialists — especially younger voters — never heard of Margaret Thatcher, and have no idea that she said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

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 can’t help but notice that Republicans, by and large, are far more resistant to the word “socialism” than actual socialism. As you’ve written before, Trump’s federal governance has taken our country closer to socialism than any president in our lifetime, and Republicans seem fine with it. You’ve complained that many on right have forgotten what “conservatism” and “liberalism” mean. Isn’t the same true for socialism? — Ben G.

I think it’s demonstrably true, Ben. Many of my fellow righties hate when I point this out, but it’s important to look at what Trump’s done:

He’s taken government equity stakes in at least 20 private companies now (some of those arrangements include the power to make business decisions in these private companies). That alone is closer to textbook socialism than ANYTHING Biden (and arguably Obama) ever did. Yet, Republicans largely shrug their shoulders at it.

There was no Republican backlash against Trump directing price controls for prescription drugs. He’s also advocated for credit card fee controls in the past, with little pushback.

His central planning efforts, and his extreme intervention in the U.S. economy with his tariff leveraging and manipulation, are other examples. And despite the tariffs producing terrible results (including driving up consumer prices), most Republicans still approve of them (according to the polls anyway).

So yeah, I’m not convinced either party-base really understands what socialism is anymore, because both are FAR too accepting of it. One side (the Dems) is just much more comfortable with the term “socialism.”

I don’t understand why people are making fun of Trump for being taken out of Air Force One in a catering truck, and transferred to a different plane, because of a security threat in Turkey. Do you understand it? — Alex D.

No, I don’t — not that part of it, anyway. To me, it seemed like a smart move by the Secret Service. What I found amusing was that people in Trump’s administration (including Marco Rubio) and members of the press were left on Air Force One, and took off in it, despite the threat being serious. I’m sure they were subject to an appropriate risk assessment and everything, but I at least get why people think that part of it is kind of funny (and maybe even symbolic).

Greetings Sir John — now that Francesca Hong got shellacked in the primaries, is there even the slightest chance that a lot of the corporate Democrats might be willing to stand up against the socialists in their party? Could the conservatives do the same against the diehard MAGA people that excuse the bad things that Trump does, such as being wishy-washy on dealing with the Iranian Mullahs? —“Will They or Won’t They?” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor.

To answer your first question, I think what we saw in Wisconsin was the Democratic base standing up to democratic socialism. And because it worked in this case, I do think there’s reason to believe Democratic leaders might grow a little courage and become more emboldened to speak up against the DSA crowd. I don’t have high hopes of that happening, but they’re slightly higher than before Hong lost.

As for the Republicans, I think it’s too late for that now. The midterm primaries are almost over, and while I’m glad Minnesota Republicans shut down Mike Lindell, the party advanced a lot of MAGA nutters elsewhere (like Ken Paxton). MAGA has been the GOP establishment for a decade now, and that won’t change until Trump leaves office for the last time. As we head into the 2028 election cycle, conservatives will have another opportunity to reclaim the Republican Party, but I don’t think Trump will make it easy for them.

You’ve written that Bill Cassidy has become a major disappointment. Which sitting member of congress (Senate or House) do you respect the most, if any? — Jen R.

Rep. Don Bacon. He’s a Reaganite conservative (perhaps the last one in Congress), and a rare adult in the room. He seems to have the right position on virtually every issue.

Share

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

“It can be easily mocked, by the way. All of it can be easily made fun of, but we’re not afraid of that.”

In 1992 for 48 Hours, I covered the New Men’s Movement — specifically a support group in Chicago where men voiced their life-frustrations, including with women, the modern feminist movement, and unfair male stereotypes.

As you’ll probably notice, some of the arguments made in this piece are still being made today.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about the midterm momentum behind the democratic socialists, Trump’s Iran War woes, and former NBA players putting the WNBA’s wokeness to the test.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Over the weekend, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) found himself in the familiar position of being the deciding vote on a highly controversial Trump cabinet nominee. This time it was Todd Blanche. Blanche served as acting Attorney General for just a few months, but quickly demonstrated his commitment to further politicizing the Justice Department during that time. Highlights include him trying to establish the transparently corrupt $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” exempting President Trump from IRS audits, and criminally indicting former FBI Director James Comney over his placement of seashells on a beach.

Cassidy made his intentions clear on the Senate floor a day earlier. After stating his deep concerns with the nominee, the senator, reading closely from his notes, listed what he viewed as Blanche’s strengths and achievements.

Then… things got strange.

Cassidy argued that because Blanche previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, he would be “precisely the person to push back on” the president. He added, “The choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

‘It could be worse’ doesn’t feel like a particularly compelling argument for selecting a top cabinet official, but it was the one Cassidy offered. The senator then soberly declared that he would vote to confirm Blanche, adding, “I’ll be criticized for this vote. What’s new?”

At that point, Cassidy was overcome with emotion, appearing to tear up as he struggled through the last sentence of his prepared remarks: “But the people of Louisiana can be assured that I worked hard to understand the issue and to make the right decision.”

It’s hard to look at that clip and see anything other than a defeated man — a once widely respected elected-leader, tormented by his conscience in the face of a consequential decision for the country, surrendering — again — to political pressure.

And just like that, the last four months of brazen corruption and attempted corruption from Blanche (and the DOJ under his direction) was effectively ratified by the U.S. Senate.

One can only imagine what’s next on Blanche’s docket, now that he has the wind at his back.

The tale of Bill Cassidy is a tragic one. He did the right thing after January 6, 2021 when he voted to convict Donald Trump for inciting the attack on our nation’s Capitol. It likely wasn’t an easy decision at the time. Trump, after all, was the popular leader of Cassidy’s party, and just weeks after the attack, polls made it clear that the Republican base was rallying around the former president.

Cassidy could have just gone along to get along, and let Trump off the hook. That’s what most GOP leaders did. Instead, he patriotically put the country and U.S. Constitution above politics.

The senator did have one political advantage that most of his pro-impeachment colleagues didn’t. He’d won reelection just a few weeks earlier, guaranteeing himself another six-year term. That would give his deep-red Louisiana constituents (and the rest of the country) plenty of time to move on from the Trump years.

But, as we know, Republicans didn’t want to move on. Most never gave up on the lie that Trump had won the 2020 election. Many latched onto related conspiracy theories (including alternative January 6 realities) and never let go, convincing themselves that Trump was not an instigator, but rather a victim, of terrible injustices to our country.

Republican voters decided that Trump was therefore owed another term in office. And in November of 2024, after years of high inflation, a mentally compromised President Biden, and Kamala Harris failing to impress as Biden’s last-minute replacement, enough of the electorate was compelled to agree.

By then, all but a few pro-impeachment Republicans had been purged from Congress, not through general elections, but party pressure and GOP primaries (often with Trump’s direct involvement). Senator Cassidy, like the rest of us, watched it all play out. He planned to run again in 2026, and decided that if he were to stand any chance of being reelected, he’d need to pucker up and give Trump whatever he asked for… including the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Cassidy, a highly-respected physician, understood better than anyone in the senate just how glaringly unfit Kennedy was for the position. The senator openly stated his concerns — passionately at times, including over Kennedy’s long history of nutty vaccine-skepticism and healthy-industry conspiracy theories. But it was ultimately all for show. Cassidy surrendered his better judgment, and served as the deciding vote to put Kennedy in charge of our nation’s public health (along with confirming the rest of Trump’s nominees over those first few months).

Unsurprisingly, Kennedy made Cassidy pay for that decision. Within months, the HHS Secretary reneged on every vaccine-related assurance he’d offered the senator. He also defunded promising mRNA research, of which Cassidy was a vocal proponent.

Still, Cassidy’s reelection hopes remained alive. He spent lots of time publicly flattering the president, supporting him politically, and lobbying for him to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But it was all for nil. Trump urged an election-denying primary opponent into Cassidy’s race, and quickly endorsed her. On the day of the Louisiana primary, Trump took the opportunity to call Cassidy a “disloyal disaster,” a “sleazebag,” and a “terrible guy.”

Cassidy, a two-term incumbent senator who’d won both of his previous statewide elections by double digits, finished in third place with less than 25% of the vote.

Following his defeat, Cassidy threw out some bold, independent talk, suggesting that in his final months in office, he’d stand up to the Trump administration when it made sense to. There was reason to think he might just do it, seemingly having nothing to lose politically. But Blanche’s nomination was a perfect opportunity to showcase that independence, and Cassidy, instead, just caved again.

“Battered wife syndrome all the way down,” a buddy of mine suggested as the reason.

I suppose there could be something to that, especially after Friday’s emotional display (which Cassidy later attributed to the overwhelming honor of being a senator).

“He doesn't want to spend the remainder of his life looking over his shoulder for that deranged MAGA thug who wants to avenge Donald Trump,” another theorized.

I doubt that’s the explanation, being that Cassidy’s impeachment vote (which he says he doesn’t regret) assuredly angered his constituents more than rejecting Blanche ever would have. Still, I suppose Cassidy could be longing for a peaceful Louisiana retirement, and is done ruffling partisan feathers.

Others are suggesting that Cassidy’s thinking about a future job as a lobbyist.

At this point, the “why” doesn’t matter much to me. What may matter to some of my readers is “why” I’m focusing specifically on Cassidy, when dozens of other Republican senators voted to confirm Blanche as well. I heard from people making that point after I singled him out for his RFK Jr. vote, and I suppose their question is a fair one.

The reason is that Cassidy, with his impeachment vote, proved he has more integrity, and a higher regard for the U.S. Constitution, than nearly all of his Republican colleagues. One could summarize that rationale as “he knows better,” but the truth is that most of the GOP Congress has long known better, but often chooses to do the wrong thing anyway.

Cassidy actually is better (or at least was better), and that’s why I expect more from him.

Maybe that’s unfair to the senator, but after handing the keys to people like Kennedy and Blanche, I guess I don’t care.

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.

Editor’s Note: This column is a more detailed and updated version of a recent Off the Cuff

When you’re the president of the United States it’s a good idea to play the movie through in your head, all the way to end, before you do something of great consequence, like taking your country to war. Except caution is not Donald Trump’s style. He is, as Peter Baker put it in the New York Times, “The most impulsive president of modern times” who “follows his instincts and can completely reverse himself by the day, or sometimes the hour.”

His impulses led him to believe that war with Iran would end quickly, that it would not drag on as his critics alleged.

The war started on February 28. One day later, on March 1, the president said, the war likely would last “four to five weeks.”

On March 5 he said, “The United States military, together with the wonderful Israeli partners, continues to totally demolish the enemy far ahead of schedule and at levels that people have never seen before.”

And two days after that, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that, “We’re winning the war by a lot. We’ve decimated their whole evil empire.”

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 read an interesting Proverb a couple of days ago: "Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war. (Proverbs 20:18)" Who is guiding Trump in his execution of this military action with Iran? Is he receiving wise counsel, or does this thing have Trump's fingerprints all over it with its impulsive actions and lack of strategic thinking? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. I think Trump’s impulsiveness and lack of understanding on complex issues plays a big part in all of this. That said, in his first term, he had a number of hawkish foreign policy experts around him to shape his thinking. I think it was helpful. On the other hand, he largely ignored those advisors on Afghanistan. Biden did the same thing, and it was a huge mistake

In his second term, Trump does have some hawks in his orbit, but he also has a lot of “America First” non-interventionist types who are much more interested in appeasing America’s enemies, and building private business relationships with them, than helping our allies. I include JD Vance and Steve Witkoff among that crowd. Sometimes it’s those people who seem to be guiding Trump. Other times, it’s the hawks. I seems to depend, at least in part, on the last person he talks to on any given day.

Sir John — Ben Shapiro has been reporting that some high level security leaks have been occurring regarding Trump’s strategies on pending attacks on Iran. If this is true, then it reeks of high treason! SO…WHY hasn't security figured out who the leakers are and WHY are there no charges or prosecutions? I know Trump demands loyalty, so this is about as disloyal and dangerous to our nation as it can get. Your thoughts? —“PLUG The Leaks!” Regards — From The Emperor

I obviously don’t know for sure who’s leaking the information, Emperor, but there’s been wide speculation (including among serious people) that it’s JD Vance and/or the people on his team, who are ideologically opposed to U.S. military action in other countries. Trump has been denouncing the leaks (and vowing to find and punish the leakers), while simultaneously insisting that the information in the leaks is false (which wouldn’t really make them leaks). So, I don’t know what’s going to come from it.

Regardless, I think the leaks are a problem. Advertising America’s weaknesses or plans to our enemies (real or fabricated) does no good for our nation.

As it turns out, DOGE didn’t save our country any money. Elon and company misreported a bunch of numbers, and the only thing they really achieved was screwing up a bunch of infrastructure and workflow processes. Surprised? — Alex D.

No, not at all. Elon Musk is extremely bright in a number of areas, but he never knew what he was doing with DOGE. We know which government programs need to be reformed to actually curb spending, but he didn’t even touch those, and I don’t think he was allowed to. In the end, it was basically just a big show — a publicity stunt, of sorts. Sadly, a lot of people fell for it.

John, as we all know, agree or disagree, every President issues Pardons on their way out of Office. But aren’t they all normally for people convicted or accused of committing a crime? I’ve never understood why Fauci needed a last minute, preemptive pardon from Biden when he didn’t, to my knowledge, commit a crime. And as far as Biden claiming Trump would try to “trap” Fauci, he can’t be “trapped” if, again, factually he has done nothing wrong. The whole thing, at the very least, raises suspicion that Biden was aware of wrongdoing. And pleading the 5th last week just added to it. I don’t think preemptive pardons should be allowed for any President. And that includes Trump in two years! — Rob O.

Hi Rob. Typically, pardons are indeed issued for people who’ve committed known crimes, or have been charged with committing crimes. As you said, Biden issued a “preemptive” pardon to Fauci. He did the same to Gen. Mark Milley, and also members of the January 6 committee. It struck me as odd at the time, being that none of those those people had been credibly accused of actually committing crimes. I’m also not sure that any of them had even requested a pardon (some seemed legitimately surprised to receive one from Biden). When Biden, soon after, started pardoning his family members, it occurred to me that the earlier pardons were probably more of a smokescreen. I think they were handed out to those who Trump had publicly vowed retribution against, in order for Biden to later rationalize the pardons for his family (who he argued Trump would use his DOJ to target).

On a side note, the Trump DOJ did, in fact, end up targeting a bunch of political opponents, and the DOJ has been losing those cases (or having them tossed out) left and right. It’s been an abuse of power and a waste of time and public money.

As for presidential pardons, I think Congress needs to work to restrict them — perhaps by requiring a majority (or even a super-majority) of the Senate to okay them. Between Trump and Biden, the pardon power has been severely abused. Trump has already pardoned thousands of criminals — including filthy rich individuals who gave him gifts. I expect Trump to issue a full pardon for himself on his way out the door, as well as preemptive pardons for thousands of other individuals (including staff and business associates).

JD Vance fat shamed political columnist Marc Thiessen on X the other day, it seems out of nowhere. I know you’re not a fan of either man. Thoughts? — Ben G.

Hi Ben. You are correct that I’m not a fan of either of them, but that hardly matters in regard to this topic. I couldn’t care less about either one’s physical appearance or dietary choices, and I think it’s gross that the Vice President of the United States would use his position and platform for that. It’s obviously gross when Trump does it as well. I want adults leading our government and representing us in Washington. It seems like very little to ask, yet here we are.

By the way, some people were surprised that Vance would go after Thiessen, being that Thiessen is an unabashed Trump apologist. What they might not know is that Thiessen has been trying to lay blame on Vance for the missteps in the Iran War (in large part because Thiessen refuses to criticize Trump). So yeah, there’s definitely some heat there.

Share

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

“We don’t want to waste genius sperm on morons.”

In 1991 for 48 Hours, I reported on a California sperm bank — a very exclusive one —that specialized in producing exceptionally smart kids.

The company even had “sperm recruiters” who sought out and essentially cold-called notably smart donors.

One of the “genius kids” I covered in the story, Doron Blake, was coincidentally written about in a New York Post story on the bank just a couple months ago. Now a father of two, he has some interesting (and perhaps surprising) views on how he was conceived.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the dilemma President Trump finds himself in on the Iran War.

Share

Read more

Hardly a day goes by when Donald Trump isn’t fixated on something or other.

If it isn’t tariffs, it’s his magnificent ballroom. If it’s not the ballroom, it’s his beautiful reflecting pool, and if it’s none of the above, it might be goofy threats about taking over Greenland or making Canada our 51st state.

But now, the president has something else locked in his sites. He wants to nuke the filibuster so that Republicans will get to pass — with a simple 51 vote majority — “everything they ever dreamed of,” as he put it — but specifically, he wants the SAVE America Act to become law.

Sounds good, if you’re a MAGA Republican. But it’s a terrible idea.

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: One of the good things that came out of North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico) hosting the World Cup is the number of foreign visitors mixing with locals. Call it a warm fuzzy or a feelgood, but almost all reported loving the interaction. The same goes for regular folks enjoying the Great American Road Trip this summer. Is there hope for America if we can just get out of the political class, off of Tic Toc, and into genuine human interaction? — Steve R.

I too enjoyed the mingling of cultures, and watching visitors to our country enjoy a heaping helping of American exceptionalism. I’m reminded often that America is so much better than the boobs who represent us in political office. Then again, it’s us Americans who keep electing those boobs.

What did you think about Laura Ingraham making faces behind Dr. Fauci throughout his congressional hearing? — Alex D.

Ingraham is always in actress mode — always (whenever she’s on camera, anyway). What made this performance particularly pitiful is that Ingraham has a long history of claiming that other people are “acting” during congressional hearings when they express any kind of emotion. She even said that about January 6 police officers, one of whom almost died at the hands of rioters. She really is an embarrassment.

So as I noticed you reposted a take from Issac Saul on it, what’s your take on the recently released Fauci emails? I read a few of them (mostly the ones from in the early months of the pandemic) and my general impression was that (1) Wow, this guy has a massive ego, surprised both his head and Trump’s could fit in the same room and (2) He really was scrambling and trying in good faith to figure out what was really going on and come up with ways to fight the pandemic.

Even Point 1 is caveated by the fact that doing comms on COVID actually was his job for much of the pandemic. So of course he would document what news channels and podcasts he went on. I was actually impressed at the ideological breath of his press hits. I also read a few of the Biden-era emails where he seemed to really have let the fame go to his head, and also seemed to be in CYA mode to some extent. But I certainly don’t think they exposed any villainous criminal plot to cover up The COVID Lab Leak on his part, either. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I was kind of hoping no one would ask me about this, because I haven’t paid sufficient attention to the story — as of yet, anyway. But I’ll do my best…

Let me start by saying that during the pandemic, I had a pretty nuanced view of Dr. Fauci. I never believed him to be evil incarnate (like many on the Right did), nor did I think he was our saint and savior (like many on the Left did). My broad assessment was that he was an expert in the field (with a strong reputation) who came across as calm, measured, and knowledgeable during a time when Americans were absolutely desperate for that.

Prior to Fauci became the face of the U.S. government response to the pandemic, the federal government’s public relations efforts were a hot mess. No one seemed to be on the same page, Trump didn’t seem to be taking any of it seriously (many of us still remember those insane press conferences), and Americans were understandably confused and afraid. Fauci presented himself as the adult in the room, he gave answers that made sense, and it made him an unlikely cultural icon.

But as we would find out, he was a proponent of the “noble lie” (on things like mask use), which damaged public trust. His advisement to elected leaders (people forget he was an advisor, not a public-policy maker) erred on the side of overprotection — sometimes to a ridiculous degree. After a while, I think his role probably should have been filled by someone else.

Anyway, as for the diary revelations, I mostly agree with your assessments (including him being caught up in his newfound celebrity status at the time). But, from what little I’ve read, I do have concerns about Fauci’s conflict of interest in determining the origins of Covid-19. I think it’s fair to say that, at minimum, he was too dismissive of the Wuhan lab theory. What I don’t know is whether that dismissiveness was a conscious effort to save face (or an act of denial), being that Fauci’s agency helped fund the lab. I thought the origin of Covid-19 was important then, and I still think it is (for a number of reasons).

Please make sense of just what the H is going on in New York City. I’m so glad I don’t live there. They have a pro antisemitism, anti Israel, Mayor, in a city with the country’s largest population of Jews. And I just heard today where a third of them actually voted for Mandani. How is that possible. And then he comes out publicly and threatens to have Netanyahu arrested as a war criminal, which was foolhardy. He’s stoking hate and division by the day. And where is Chuck Shumer’s voice. As a Jew himself, where is his moral compass, AND LEADERSHIP. — Rob O.

Hi Rob. I think, especially in the political era we’re currently in, a lot of people tend to latch onto one central thing they like about a politician (often their personality or a populist message), become far too emotionally invested in that person (to the point that it becomes part of their identity), and then twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing their support for that individual (even in the face of that individual’s indefensible positions, decisions, and conduct).

Case in point, I think most of Mamdani’s supporters would swear up and down (and even convince themselves) — no matter what he says or does — that his opposition is to certain decisions being made by Israel’s government, and not something more deeply rooted. Those outside of their orbit can tell them all day long that they’re deluded and only fooling themselves, and it won’t make a lick of difference to them.

Someone like Schumer (a teammate of sorts) could be more successful, but again — in this political era — very few people are willing to stand up and tell their own team hard truths, because they fear being booted out of the team and out of power.

In case it isn’t clear from how I answered that question, it’s not just a problem on the Left.

Hello Sir John— Do you have any thoughts on the Nolan Wells mystery/tragedy and how Benjamin Crump and the family are handling the case? —“Robert Stack” Regards from The Emperor

I don’t have any thoughts on this, Emperor, because I haven’t paid any attention to the case at all. Sorry!

I listened to your interview with Scott English (Mark Sanford’s former chief of staff), and was surprised to learn he stuck by Sanford and continued working for him even after Sanford put him through that whole Appalachian Trail mess. If Bernie pulled something like that, would you stick by him? — Ben G.

Bernie can’t walk the Appalachian Trail because of his ankle bracelet, Ben. So, it would never become an issue.

(I should probably add that that’s a joke, lol).

Share

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