In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, John Daly substitutes for Bernie again to talk about Van Jones’ warning to the Democratic Party, and President Trump’s primetime speech on election integrity.

Share

Read more

Why do so many voters support the kind of candidates that we know are deeply flawed? The kind we would have laughed off the stage just a generation ago.

Candidates like Donald Trump — a man who is chronically dishonest, vulgar, and vengeful. Yet none of these things disqualified him. He was elected not once but twice.

We didn’t simply overlook his faults, we embraced them — same with Graham Platner in Maine. He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for almost 20 years — but voters shrugged. No big deal. And in Texas, Republican voters tossed out John Cronyn, a decent, well-respected man who served honorably in the U.S. Senate for more than 20 years, and picked a philanderer who was impeached by his own party in the Texas House.

Yes, we acknowledge they may be the kind of people who lack character, but they’re not phonies — at least that’s what we tell ourselves. They’re authentic. And nowadays what passes for authentic goes a long way.

But there’s another reason we vote for people like Trump, Platner and Paxton. And it’s not complicated. It’s simply that we’ve convinced ourselves the other side is worse. A lot worse. And in a binary system, where we have to choose between two candidates from the major parties, “the other side is worse” argument carries a lot of weight.

Which brings me to a recent column by Gerry Baker in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s part of what he wrote:

“Few things could induce me to vote for another four years of the sort of Republicanism we are enduring now. But one of them is definitely the alternative of Islamist-friendly, open-the-borders, defund-the-police, kill-the-billionaires socialists running the country. Out of America’s vast diversity we are somehow at risk of narrowing our choice to that between a rampantly corrupt, inept, ideologically and practically capricious personality cult of a party and a party of graduate student activists with terrorist sympathies and ideas about economics that were discredited half a century ago.”

Makes sense, I guess — but only if you’re standing on a certain side of the line.

On the other side are a lot of younger voters — Baker is 64 years old — who actually embrace much of what he rejects.

They don’t like Israel. Some even support Hamas. They hate billionaires. They’re no fans of the police. They like “free” stuff. And they don’t believe the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

So Gerry Baker, a conservative, will hold his nose and vote for a party led by a narcissist who tells the truth only when it’s convenient — a party of weak men and women who tolerate Trump’s pathologies because they know he’ll unleash the MAGA faithful on them if they don’t. All because we tell ourselves the other side is worse.

We deserve better than this, don’t we?

Gerry Baker thinks so.

“There’s no prospect of a third-party breakthrough,” he writes. “But if I can live in a country where I can have my steak done medium-rare and washed down with a glass of a liquid that is one-third soy, one-third oat and one-third half and half, why can’t I choose a government that is sane, honest, patriotic, responsible and worthy of the people it governs?”

Fair enough. We do deserve better. But here’s another question: What if this is exactly what we get when we keep rewarding bad behavior?

Politicians don’t lower the bar all by themselves. Voters help them do it. If we keep settling for the lesser of two embarrassments, we shouldn’t be shocked when embarrassment becomes the new standard.

In a democracy, sooner or Ilater, we get the government we tolerate — and maybe, whether we like hearing it or not, the government we deserve.

Maybe someday we’ll get back to something that seems — for lack of a better word — normal. When candidates don’t do and say the kind of things that make us cringe.

When Donald Trump and the other “authentic” politicians are a mere dot in the rearview mirror.

As far as I’m concerned, that day can’t come soon enough.

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…

Trump, in the NATO meetings in Turkey, said: "The Islamic Republic of Japan", obviously meaning to say "the Islamic Republic of Iran." He was oblivious on this gaffe, but over-corrected himself on several others. This is becoming a glaringly frequent issue, or is it a no big deal? I think I know your answer, but please elaborate. — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. Trump has been a gaffe machine since he first entered politics, and not just in the realm of confusing names and basic terms. It’s definitely getting worse with age, and I have to believe that even the president’s most enthusiastic supporters have noticed the difference. They may even cringe when they hear him rambling about weird things like “most people” supposedly not knowing that “dumb” is spelled with a “B.” Trump’s certainly not as bad on that front as Joe Biden was, but that’s a very low bar to clear.

Last week, Mitt Romney (who’s 79 and is clearly in better shape than both Biden and Trump) was jokingly asked about whether he planned to run for president again in 2028. He replied, “I basically think people who are 80 and above really should not be running the world or running the country.”

I think he’s right, and I’d extend that rule of thumb, beyond a candidate’s ‘running’ age, to the age when that candidate would be serving in office. The U.S. presidency is an extremely important, taxing, and consequential job. While some people certainly age better than others, no one maintains their peak level of mental sharpness and endurance over a certain age (except for Bernie Goldberg, of course).

Sir John — this viral photo of a black woman on a train surrounded by an alleged white supremacist group called the Patriot Front is touted by the left as proof of how awful & racist America is.

The right correctly points out the FACT that while the black woman appears to be nervous, NOBODY from the group harassed or threatened or assaulted or stabbed or set fire to her as had been done previously to white victims of black criminals on trains — A FACT that the left completely IGNORES! Your thoughts? —“Locomotive Breath” Regards from The Emperor

Let me start with some thoughts about your premise, Emperor:

I don’t think Patriot Front is an “alleged” white supremacist group. It seems clear they’re an actual one.

I don’t know who all on “the left” “touted” the picture as “proof of how awful and racist America is.” I’m sure some people did (I wish you had given some examples), but your framing is a sweeping generalization. I think one would have to be deranged to genuinely think that these Patriot Front losers represent America. They don’t represent “the right” either. If they did, such displays would be commonplace.

You are correct that no one threatened or attacked the woman in the picture. (Those guys were very careful not to do anything illegal that day).

I disagree that “the left” “completely ignores” black-on-white violence, though there’s certainly a inclination from people on the left to downplay it (along with black-on-black violence, for that matter). Bernie, among others, has done a good job of documenting this practice (especially in the media), and those who partake in it are entirely deserving of criticism. Societal violence should never be glossed over.

Personally, I thought the photo in question was powerful (and unsettling) — not because I felt it was representative of modern America, but because it evoked imagery of America’s dark past: a lone black woman on a bus (of sorts), surrounded by masked white supremacists. Groups like Patriot Front are still fringe (thankfully), but it’s bothersome that they seem more emboldened today than a decade or so ago.

John: Mitch McConnell and Tom Kean, Jr. are the most recent examples of elected representatives taking extended time off from their posts due to health reasons. But these reasons are not disclosed to the public, and their absence becomes a mystery. What do you think the rules for disclosure should be, considering we also have HIPAA laws governing privacy? I see it as kind of a gray area ethically. Elected representatives have a duty of transparency when they are not on the job, but they also have rights of privacy as codified in American law. — Steve R.

That’s a good question, Steve. I think elected officials should feel obligated to inform their constituents of health issues that keep them from performing their jobs (at least at the expected level) for an extended period of time. I wouldn’t expect such an official to share the most intimate details of their personal health status, but their prolonged absence shouldn’t be left up to public guess-work. As for whether there should be official rules in Congress that enforce such transparency, I guess I’m at least open to it. But as you suggested, it would be a bit of an ethical balancing act.

I’m guessing JD Vance wishes he didn’t go on Joe Rogan’s podcast this week. What do you think? — Alex D.

It’s hard to say, Alex. Vance seems blissfully (and smugly) unaware of how ridiculous he comes off in such appearances — from blaming Israel (how original!) for Iran unilaterally blowing off a deal with the U.S., to throwing out straw-man nonsense about people calling for 150,000 U.S. ground troops in Iran, to fueling Epstein conspiracy theories (again dragging in Israel), to deriving sexual meaning from Joe Biden eating ice cream. I honestly would not be surprised if, before the end of this term, Trump becomes embarrassed/annoyed enough by Vance to force his resignation. Vance, after all, is indirectly saying that foreign entities have compromised the Trump administration.

What’s your take on Pete Hegseth’s video this week promising “testosterone replacement therapy” for members of our military? This guy is beyond parody. — Ben G.

I’ve said a few times now that Hegseth is becoming more like Dwight Schrute every day, and I think this is a perfect example. I guess we’ll know how serious this initiative becomes if the president’s financial advisors start investing heavily in Tucker Carlson-highlighted testicle tanning technology.

Share

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

“They are the kings of this business.”

In part two of my 48 Hours report from the NATPE convention in 1989, I covered Roger and Michael King, who were behind some of television’s top syndicated shows at the time: Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, and Oprah.

I interviewed Vanna White, among others.

(Look for part three next week).

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, John Daly substitutes for Bernie to talk about the civil war within the Democratic Party, lessons to be learned from the Graham Platner fiasco, and the Iran War.

Share

Read more

In 2025 alone, President Trump personally earned a whopping $2.2 billion.

That number (more than three and a half times what he made in 2024, before returning to the White House) didn’t come from some Trump-hating “fake news” outlet. It came from Trump himself, through his personal financial disclosure released last month.

Perhaps needless to say, those earnings — driven by cryptocurrency gains and personal trading — far surpass those of any sitting president in U.S. history.

The 927-page disclosure revealed breathtaking details. As The Dispatch reported, Trump’s “personal financial advisers made more than 21,000 securities trades, many involving companies directly affected by White House policies.”

One such example was the administration’s July 2025 announcement of its “AI Action Plan,” the same day on which Trump’s advisors purchased millions of dollars in stock in each of six major tech companies deeply involved with AI.

The Dispatch added, “The advisers also sold stock hundreds of times in the days following the announcement of ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs in April,” and “made 327 stock purchases on April 8, the day before Trump announced broad pauses to the tariff program.”

Of course, the president additionally made millions off of novelty products (including Trump-branded Bibles), but most of his earnings came from cryptocurrency tied to his $TRUMP memecoin.

“Cryptocurrency analytics firm Nansen found that the nearly 1 million people who bought Trump’s memecoin, $TRUMP, had lost a collective $3.81 billion through the end of June,” reported The Dispatch. “Meanwhile, Trump himself received a payout of $636 million tied to his memecoin business, and in total reported more than $1.4 billion from his cryptocurrency ventures in 2025—topping the net income of every U.S. publicly traded crypto company, including Coinbase, the most profitable of them.”

Some may recall that during Trump’s first term in office, the president repeatedly called cryptocurrency a “scam.” He complained that its value was “based on thin air.” But as he was running for president in 2024, he either had a profound change of heart on crypto… or perhaps came to understand that it was a “scam” that he, himself, could make a lot of money off of.

Trump created World Liberty Financial (WLFI), his own crypto company (along with his sons, Steve Witkoff, and Witkoff’s sons). The organization has a pretty interesting history and revenue model… as well as notable foreign ties.

Per The Dispatch:

Its key product is USD1: a fiat-backed stablecoin, pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, that traders use to trade more volatile crypto without converting back to cash each time, and from which World Liberty earns money through interest on the Treasury bills and cash it holds in reserve. World Liberty’s profits have also been boosted by its ties to Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by user count and daily trading volume.

In May 2025, World Liberty revealed that the MGX fund, backed by the government of the United Arab Emirates, had used USD1 to settle its $2 billion investment in Binance—propelling the fledgling stablecoin’s growth. Binance now holds 87 percent of USD1’s circulating supply. In October 2025, Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had completed a four-month prison sentence after pleading guilty in 2023 to violating U.S. anti-money-laundering laws after prosecutors said Binance had allowed transactions benefiting terrorist groups including Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Four days before Trump’s 2025 inauguration, World Liberty sold a 49 percent stake in the company to investors tied to the United Arab Emirates. Then during Trump’s May 2025 visit to UAE capital Abu Dhabi, the U.S. and UAE struck a deal allowing the Emirates to import hundreds of thousands of Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips a year and build an Nvidia-powered “Stargate UAE” data campus, reversing Biden-era limits on such exports. According to his disclosures, World Liberty made Trump $594 million in 2025 from token and equity sales—or $799 million including a related UAE-linked stablecoin stake sale.

“As head of the executive branch,” we’re reminded in the report, Trump “directs the regulation of an industry he has a multi-billion-dollar financial stake in.”

Case in point (again per The Dispatch):

The first week of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that created a working group to draft crypto-friendly regulations, and in March 2025 he signed an order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile meant to position the U.S. as a leader in “government digital asset strategy.” The SEC under Trump has also refused to regulate memecoins as securities, claiming they are more akin to “collectibles.”

We’re now half-way through 2026 (only a year and a half into this presidential term), and Trump has already tripled his net worth since returning to office. It now sits at $6.5 billion.

This isn’t America First. It’s Trump First.

With no signs of his stock trading and crypto action slowing down, next year’s financial disclosure should be another banger.

“It’s not just the moneymaking that’s unrivaled,” the Free Press editorial board argued. “It’s also the flagrant appearance of corruption that those billions represent. You do not need to think Trump is the end of American democracy, or that everything he does is evil, to see this for what it is: the biggest grift in American history. For all the condemnation of the so-called ‘Biden Crime Family’ by Republicans—and Burisma and Hunter Biden were not high moments—it pales in comparison to what is happening in this presidency.”

The editors added, “Most Americans should understand what is happening: a transfer of wealth from them—and perhaps foreigners—to the president.”

But most Americans likely don’t understand that. They’re understandably busy with their own lives, and don’t have time for politics (especially with how ugly our politics have become). And sadly, I think an uncomfortable number of those who do understand it — including lots of Trump supporters — simply don’t care. They’ve either priced in such corruption (knowing who Trump is), or think he’s owed a pass — as a victim of perceived persecution and the leader of their tribe — to do whatever the heck he wants (even if it’s at their own expense).

Legally speaking, Trump assuredly will get a pass. While wildly unethical, none of the above actions appear to be illegal. There’s a federal criminal statue that forbids employees of the executive branch from engaging in matters that affect their personal financial interests, but that statue notably does not apply to the president and vice president of the United States.

In other words, any oversight of Trump’s massive financial gains as president, and any related conflicts of interest, would have to come from Congress. Congress can certainly hold hearings, begin investigations, and even impeach Trump (for a third time). But if members really want to close the loopholes that have allowed for such abuses of power — abuses our Founding Fathers likely never envisioned — they can do their job and actually pass legislation to impose restrictions.

They absolutely should, and we should have enough self-respect as Americans to encourage them to.

Share

It’s easy to be cynical about politicians. They’re always coming up with something that makes us cringe. But if you need proof of how bad it can get, consider what so many Democrats were willing to say and do for Graham Platner in his bid to oust Maine incumbent GOP Senator Susan Collins.

Until now.

Before news broke that Platner was accused of raping a woman he had dated — a woman who wasn’t anonymous, who didn’t hide in the shadows, but told her story on national television — the red warning lights were flashing. But most of his fellow Democrats who weren’t named John Fetterman didn’t want to notice.

Platner, a marine combat veteran was one of the Democratic Party’s newest progressive heroes who ran as a champion of Maine’s working class. But there were a few — (let’s call them) — complications. He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for nearly 20 years and covered it up only when he decided to run for office. He said cops are bastards. He used slurs to describe people online. He said war was “the most enjoyable experience of my life.” When he was a bartender, he wondered, “Why don’t black people tip?” He sent explicit sexual text messages to women who weren’t his wife. And speaking about sexual assault, he said, “Rape is a real thing. If you’re so worried about it … you might not get blacked out f—-ed up around people you aren’t comfortable with.”

Apparently all of that was survivable — because Graham Platner was the guy who might beat Susan Collins and maybe even flip the Senate to Democrat control.

Read more

We here at BernardGoldberg.com were saddened to hear of the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham. RIP.

We offer our condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, and staff.

We’ve opened the comment section below for anyone interested in weighing in with their thoughts.

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…

So what’s your take on the IMO hot potato take I have seen on the Right, that Trump v. Barbara is the new Roe v. Wade, an egregiously bad SCOTUS decision that will eventually be overturned once the New Right manages to get enough Justices on the Court to overturn it? Even the overall cooler heads at The Dispatch are considering this might eventually happen, even though I don’t get the impression they think it’s a good thing.

My gut feeling is that none of this is actually going to happen. That the Matt Walsh and Sean Davis types will howl about it for a few more days, but quickly move on to the next Woke Outrage. But I certainly could be wrong. — Aylene W.

I’m with you, Aylene. I don’t think anything is going to come from this, and even in the week or so that has passed since you submitted this question, the issue seems to have largely fallen off everyone’s radar. Frankly, I think that those who had an absolute meltdown over the SCOTUS ruling are either professional grifters (who reliably peddle such performative outrage as part of their revenue model), or are truly mentally deranged. I’m convinced Sean Davis is both, and Matt Walsh is just full of it.

To review, the Supreme Court merely — as everyone expected — upheld how our country has interpreted the 14th Amendment for over 100 years. The notion that their decision was somehow “treasonous” or marked the “end of our country” (as some clowns argued) is beyond absurd. And the personal attacks on Amy Coney Barrett, some of which were racist, were disgusting.

If people don’t like the amendment, it can be changed through Congress.

Do you have any sympathy for people who supported Graham Platner up until the latest accusation that ended his candidacy, and do you object to Maine Democrats holding a convention to replace Platner on the ballot with a different nominee? — Ben G.

No and no.

Platner was a glaringly unfit candidate long before his nomination and the rape accusation. I have no sympathy for those who overlooked (or tried to whitewash) his unfitness and horridness right up until the eleventh hour.

As for Maine’s Democratic primary, political parties are not public utilities. Voting in a primary isn’t a Constitutional right. As we saw with Biden and Harris, a political party can make up its own rules for how to select a nominee. Conventions were the typical method for that up until the 1970s, and my own state was still doing it less than a decade ago.

Greetings Sir John — you write that Colorado candidate Victor Marx has a slight lead over Barbara Kirkmeyer in the primaries, and that Melat Kiros (progressive Democrat leftist) beat incumbent Diana DeGette. Okay so HOW THE HELL did it even get to this point!? Seriously! Did the idiots come of legal voting age to put the Democratic Socialists in power!? Do normal conservatives sit out the primaries so that only the fringe dwellers come out to vote!? WHY do people abstain from voting in the primaries and then gripe when the dud candidates WIN primaries but then crash & burn during the general election!? —“BOTH Parties Need An Exorcism!” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This was my response to someone who asked a similar question in the comment section:

Trump broke the Colorado GOP in 2016 when he accused us of rigging the primary for Ted Cruz (who won it). When Trump won the nomination, scores of grassroots conservatives ended their volunteerism for the party, roughly 20,000 Republicans statewide dropped their Republican affiliation, and a bunch of MAGA nuts took over the state party, and drove it into the ground. We went from trending red again in 2014 to going dark blue. That led to the Dems becoming more emboldened and powerful, and moving even father left.

Interestingly, we still vote conservative on a lot of ballot issues, but the dwindling GOP has made itself so embarrassing that Republican candidates can only win local races here and there.

Regarding your point about primary voting, Colorado has an open primary, which means: 1) Registered Republicans get to vote in the GOP primary; 2) Registered Democrats get to vote in the Democratic primary; 3) Unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in either party’s primary, but not both. In other words, any registered voter can vote in the primaries.

There are around 4 million registered voters in Colorado. About a million and a half of them (roughly a third) participated in this year’s primary-voting for the state’s governor. So yeah, as is the case in probably every state, not enough people vote in the primaries. It’s typically the most engaged voters who do, and they also tend to be the most radical. That leads to absurd, unserious party-nominations.

Is it fair to say that after seeing how quickly Trump gave away the store with the MOU, the Iranian regime became keenly aware of just how desperate Trump was, and decided they held enough leverage to refuse to uphold their end of the deal, and hold out for even more? — Alex D.

I think that’s largely true, Alex. What surprised me is how quickly the regime blew up their end of the deal. The Trump administration immediately front-loaded a lot of the MOU-specified benefits to Iran (including unlocking billions of dollars for them), while the U.S. got nothing in return. I figured the Iranians would milk that situation (and string Trump along) a little longer before reneging. With the regime’s attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz this week, however, it seems they were indeed hoping for (and believing they could get) even more immediate concessions. The Trump administration is, at least for now, re-blocking Iran’s oil sales (which they shouldn’t have unblocked in the first place), and going back to some military strikes.

Who knows where things will go from here, but my guess is that this war will drag on for a long time. What’s clear is that the Iranian regime is thinking about long-term goals, while the Trump administration just wants this conflict over ASAP. Thus, the regime has a strategic advantage… unfortunately.

Share

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

“If they gave out Nobel Prizes for big mouths, Morton Downey would be doing his show from Stockholm.”

In 1989 for CBS News’s 48 Hours, I traveled to the NATPE convention in Houston, Texas, where popular syndicated TV shows were marketed to local stations.

In my first of three segments at the convention, I talked to two popular daytime Trash TV stars of the era: Morton Downey Jr. and Geraldo Rivera — both of whom insisted they were giving Americans what they really wanted.

(Look for part two next week).

Read more

Share

Read more

Over the holiday weekend, a video clip of actor Rainn Wilson made the social-media rounds. Wilson, best known for his longtime portrayal of Dwight Schrute on NBC’s The Office, had some choice words for British comedian, Ricky Gervais.

Speaking on his podcast, Soul Bloom, Wilson evoked the famous opening monologue from the 2020 Golden Globe Awards, in which Gervais (who hosted the event) brutally roasted the celebrity elite in attendance. Perhaps Gervais’s most memorable line of attack that night was aimed at actors and actresses who use their award-speeches to go off on political rants.

“So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech,” said Gervais. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your God, and fuck off, okay?”

The cameras captured a mix of audience reactions, including nervous laughter, appall, and even anger. Lots of folks watching from home, however, found the display uproariously funny.

Wilson wasn’t one of them. Speaking six years later about the incident, Wilson said:

“One of the things that pisses me off to no end is Ricky Gervais saying, ‘Just take your actor award. No one wants to hear what you have to say.’ It’s like, Fuck you. Bullshit. Guess what… Everyone gets to say what they want to say about anything. Gaza, climate change, politics. You get to say it. If you’re a truck driver, you get to say it. If you’re a school teacher, or you’re winning an award… We have free speech… Why would you try to shame and silence someone from speaking their truth?"

Wilson added that he believed people who speak about politics should at least do some research, so that they know what they’re talking about (as opposed to just virtue signaling), but he reiterated his position that anyone should be able to say whatever they want.

I’m sympathetic to Wilson’s position, broadly speaking.

As I wrote a couple years ago, I used to buy into media-conservative mantras like “shut up and act” and “shut up and sing,” mainly because I had a visceral dislike of being lectured in the political arena by dolts who believed their celebrity status made then uniquely qualified to speak out on such topics. I think I was also a bit resentful of what I viewed as their undeserved, disproportionate political influence.

But over time, I came see them as no different than the right-wing cable-news hosts who routinely slam liberal celebrities for leaving their lane (while those same hosts fawn over right-wing celebrities who publicly agree with them).

“What moral or intellectual high-ground does someone like Sean Hannity have over a progressive actor to publicly weigh in on politics?” I posed in the piece. “Heck, the same could be said about me. Do I have any better argument for having my political views heard than Barbra Streisand and Bette Midler? Am I any more or less important, as an individual, than they are? Like them, I’ve never worked in politics (aside from some volunteer stuff). Does that mean I should I “shut up and write novels?”

Thus, I don’t really care anymore if a bunch of progressive actors and actresses use their platforms to sound off about politics, including at an awards show (even though one can effectively argue that it isn’t an appropriate time and place for politics in the first place).

But as someone who absolutely loved watching Ricky Gervais rake Hollywood over the coals that night — to their faces, no less — my position may be one Wilson hasn’t considered.

It’s not about whether or not someone has the right to speak out. Of course celebrities (like the rest of us) have the right to say what they want to say. What made Gervais’s monologue so fresh and welcome was that it was a long overdue display of irreverence toward a conformist industry that punishes political dissent within its ranks.

Case in point, one of today’s most politically outspoken actors is Mark Ruffalo. He’s far to the left of even your typical far-lefty, whether the topic is economic policy, the Middle East, the environment, “social justice,” Republicans, etc. He has said all kinds of politically controversial and offensive things over the years. Yet, it’s quite clear from his Hollywood resume that he has never paid any kind of professional price for it (and very likely never will).

Frankly, that’s fine with me. I think Ruffalo is a great actor, and I have no interest in him being cancelled over what I view as atrocious political positions.

Unfortunately, folks in Hollywood who lean right in their views aren’t afforded that luxury.

I’ve had some fun conversations lately with filmmaker, Howard Klausner, including one I recorded a couple weeks ago for the Reagan Caucus Podcast. Klausner found big Hollywood success early in his screenwriting career with 2000’s Space Cowboys. The critically acclaimed drama, led by an iconic ensemble cast (Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner) grossed about $130 million, and really put Klausner on the map.

But before long, he found himself facing professional headwinds, as others in his industry grew suspicious that he was a conservative Christian (which he was, and remains).

“I got kind of soft-cancelled,” he told me. “I just stopped getting calls.” One Hollywood executive, who Klausner ran into years later, even admitted as much… and apologized.

Klausner has a healthy attitude about it all. He moved back to his hometown of Nashville years ago, and has gone on to create personally fulfilling, smaller-budget films. He loves his life, and is filled with gratitude for the successes he’s had.

But it’s worth considering that, unlike a long list of liberals in Hollywood, Klausner didn’t preach his views on a big, public platform (like a major awards show or a high-profile interview). He simply held those views — mainstream, traditional views that are still shared by millions of Americans. He was punished for them nonetheless, and his story isn’t a unique one in an industry that, as echoed by Wilson, claims to champion free speech.

Mark Ruffalo and company don’t know how well they have it. Or maybe they do, and they revel in being on the side of what is acceptable speech in the entertainment industry.

So yeah, I didn’t mind one bit when Ricky Gervais used his free speech rights (and comedic talent) to poke some holes in the Hollywood bubble. It was glorious.

Speaking of that bubble, Howard Klausner’s most recent film success was 2024’s Reagan, starring Dennis Quaid. The film, depicting the life of one of our nation’s most popular and consequential presidents, took 14 years to finally get to the big screen. This was, in large part, because major Hollywood studios had no interest in telling the story — at least not in a positive light. Despite around 70% of the nation still viewing Reagan and his legacy favorably, the film had to eventually be produced independently without Hollywood resources, and predominantly starred outed politically-right actors and actresses.

It grossed over $30 million.

Share

Nuance isn’t a word in Donald Trump’s political playbook. Neither is subtlety. That’s not how he operates. So if someone has offended him — for just about any reason — that person, as far as Trump is concerned, is a loser. Or maybe a low-IQ, horrible individual. Or a pathetic disgrace. Sometimes, he’s even treasonous, a word he recently used to describe David Sanger of the New York Times.

Now we can add “communist” to the list of Trump’s verbal salvos—a word that may come in handy as the midterm elections approach.

According to the Washington Post, “President Donald Trump denounced Democrats as communists after self-described democratic socialists won primaries in New York, previewing a new emphasis for his campaigning in this year’s midterms.”

Accusing Americans of communist sympathies didn’t start with Donald Trump. Democrats as well as Republicans threw around terms like “soft on communism” during the Cold War after World War II. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) made a name for himself by accusing all sorts of Americans of being communists — and a few actually were.

Last month, speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington, the president said, “We have to stop this, this horrible thread of cancer that’s permeating our country called communism.”

But is this simply more name-calling, more red meat for his base — or is Donald Trump on to something this time?

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…

Do you believe many are leaning towards socialism and communism to counter the extreme aggressiveness from the MAGA folks, viewing them as hateful, apathetic, hard core and strict? It seems it's a psychological reaction to negative emotions and polar opposites. Do you see this chain of events an opportunity for the Muslim faith to appear more appealing to young Americans? Mayor Mamdani of NY is already pushing Islamic faith in his speeches and twisting the true history of Mohammad. He's preaching to low information and low educated voters. — Sharon H.

Just politically speaking, I think it does play a role, Sharon, in the sense that we’ve had these very big swings of the political pendulum, in which both major political parties reliably learn the wrong lessons from painful election losses, and think the answer is to become more radicalized and populist (rather than smarter and more solutions-focused).

I don’t see the Muslim faith becoming a big beneficiary of this, but I am worried about antisemitism becoming more mainstream in our culture — and not just on the Left. I also worry about the further degradation of our nation’s institutions, the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and economic literacy. Neither party is sufficiently defending or advocating for these things, and that ain’t good.

John: Since you will be answering questions on the eve of our nation's 250th anniversary, I would like to get out of the politics of the day. Without naming a president, who is your favorite, most-admired American all-time? Call him/her the GOAT, stars-and-stripes version. Some say Ben Franklin. My most admired is probably Thomas Sowell, who is certainly my favorite living American. — Steve R.

My most-admired American of all time? Yikes. I’d expend far too much brain power (and probably give myself a stroke) trying to come up with a single name, Steve, but I will describe the type of American I admire the most.

Former Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith famously said: “The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.”

Doing the morally right thing, and speaking truth to power — especially when it’s difficult and requires personal sacrifice — is probably what I admire most in people. I can think of a number of individuals throughout American history who fit that bill, and even a few from our current political era, believe it or not (though they’ve nearly all been run out of politics for doing it).

I’ve noticed a pattern on this website. Whenever someone in the comment section accuses you of being a “fake” conservative: 1) You ask them to define what conservatism is. 2) They refuse to, and just call you a name or tell you to shut up. LOL. Do they really not know what conservatism is? — Ben G.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, Ben. And you pose a good question. As I told one of those commenters this week, many people on the political right have unfortunately redefined conservatism as just being pro-Trump, and/or hating Democrats. It seems they no longer understand (or perhaps never knew) how conservatism was commonly understood for decades on the Right, right up until Donald Trump entered politics.

It’s a shame, because our country could really use some Reagan conservatism right about now.

Do you think your Democratic governor Jared Polis regrets giving clemency to Tina Peters to work whatever backdoor deal he worked with Trump? She’s been making him look like a fool by doing the opposite of showing contrition for her crimes, and even taking a victory lap at the White House. — Alex D.

I’m not sure, Alex, in part because it’s not clear what Polis even got for freeing her. But the decision is clearly shaping up to be his legacy as Colorado’s governor, and he can’t be happy about that. And now, even more attention is being drawn to his decision with the revelation that clemency board members unanimously advised him against granting Peters clemency. He overruled them, and then he fired them when they went public with their advisement.

From my perspective, what Polis did was a quite bad. Peters did the crime, illegally interfering in our election process. She should have done the time.

Sir John: Your discussion with Sir Bernie regarding the rise of the Democratic Socialists (read: America-Hating Communists) is rather disturbing. I admit that I am one of those people who voted for Trump only because I despise the left wing Dems for being so much worse for the nation and I see the Trump Wing as the lesser of two evils although I don’t see the MAGA people as evil. Why not? Because the MAGAs DO NOT HATE America whereas the progressive left DOES! Speaking only for myself, although I suspect that others may agree, the conservative Republican Party allowed the Trump wing so much control because people like DeSantis & Rubio got bullied by MAGA voters into possibly getting voted out, thus ushering in the Trump wing. However I don’t understand why the moderate Dem voters allowed the woke progressives to take over THEIR party! Schumer & Pelosi (and whether he wants to admit it or not) Bill Maher USHERED these people into the mainstream of the party. Was it the flip side of the moderate Republican voters who despise the left, shared by moderate Dems who despise Trump, thinking they could use the woke progs while keeping them on a leash? As Michael York asked about the NAZIs of one of the “Good Germans” in the movie “Cabaret”—-“Still think you can control them?” Seriously what the hell did the moderate Dems THINK would happen by nurturing the America-hating woke progs? — “Declaring Independence From The Extremists” regards from The Emperor

Before I get to the meat of your question, Emperor, let me push back a little on something you wrote in your buildup: “the MAGAs DO NOT HATE America.”

I largely agree with that, especially in regard to voters. But lets look at the leader of that movement for a minute: Donald Trump. I believe an individual has to have a certain level of disdain for America in order to try and overturn the results of a U.S. election (our nation’s very system of democracy) to stay in power. I believe denying our country of its peaceful transfer of power is illustrative of the same thing. One could argue the same point about reflexively and repeatedly drawing moral equivalence between our country and oppressive regimes like those of Russia and North Korea, or the weaponization of our Justice Department to punish scores of political opponents, or trying to loot billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury (along with countless other acts of using the office for self-enrichment).

So, when I hear someone say they voted for Trump because the other side hates America, I find that argument totally uncompelling. Republicans had opportunity after opportunity to move on from Trump after he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, and support individuals who have a clear, patriotic high-ground over the progressive left. The party and its base repeatedly chose not to.

Anyway, as for the Democratic takeover by increasingly progressive/socialist candidates, I offered my views on this topic above, in my answer to Sharon (as well as to Bernie in this week’s No BS Zone). I’ll just add that if relatively moderate Democrats think that letting radical outsiders into their tent (and tolerating/pacifying them) won’t lead to a cannibalization of their party and its platform, they haven’t been paying attention to recent history.

Share

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

Last month, during a GOP primary debate between candidates running to be Colorado’s next governor, moderator Kyle Clark (a Denver journalist) posed a question that ended up going viral.

Addressing candidate Victor Marx, who the polls showed to be the clear front-runner in the race, Clark, asked:

You claim that you’ve been all around the world, armed to the teeth, rescuing women and children from captivity; that you stopped human smugglers at the Mexico border and made them pay a price; that you — as a civilian — called in a U.S. Military airstrike that killed 70 ISIS fighters; that you were the first American into Gaza during the war with Israel; that you’ve done 150 high-risk missions and every one has been a success. You told me last week that it’s all true and that you don’t need to prove it to anyone. But you’re talking to voters now. How should voters decide whether you’ve lived one of the most extraordinary lives in human history, or whether you’re a liar and a fraud?

Marx, who also says he killed a man when he was just seven years old (and possibly others as an adult, though he can’t say for sure), runs a Colorado Springs ministry from which he performs exorcisms — yes, exorcisms — over the phone. It’s just one of many exotic humanitarian services provided by the ministry, which pulls in $7-8 million a year (mostly through donations).

Marx initially tried to deflect Clark’s question, but after being pressed a bit more on his wild claims, the candidate eventually evoked his service dog, Reagan (who sat next to him on stage), saying she was with him in Syria and Iraq.

“So, is she lying, too?” Marx retorted.

As a lifelong Coloradan and longtime conservative, who’s watched the Colorado GOP (that I used to volunteer for) go right down the toilet, it sadly didn’t surprise me that the MAGA-centric Marx (who was endorsed by Lauren Boebert and Ted Nugent among others) was the odds on favorite. In fact, on the morning of the primary election, Polymarket was giving Marx a 94% shot of winning. His closest competitor, state senator Barbara Kirkmeyer, sat at just 5%. This, despite Kirkmeyer arguably being the most qualified Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate in over 20 years.

Being that the third candidate in the race, Scott Bottoms, had happily aligned himself with a prominent antisemitic podcaster (who he said he’d “probably” put in his administration, assuming it’s “not around Jewish people”), my primary-ballot choice was an easy one. I voted for Kirkmeyer, despite some problems I have with her.

Thus, I was very pleasantly surprised to learn, once the vote-counts started pouring in last Tuesday night, that Kirkmeyer had vastly outperformed expectations. She actually led Marx (albeit by a very narrow margin) for the better part of a day. But, per usual, I wasn’t afforded sustained political optimism. The telephone exorcist (who may or may not have killed multiple people) eventually took the lead.

As of the time I’m writing this, with just 4% of Colorado’s ballots left to count, Marx still leads Kirkmeyer (with Bottoms a distant third) by a couple thousand votes. The race is still too close to call, and it could be a few days yet before we’ll know for sure who won.

But sadly, it won’t matter much come November. Our now solidly blue state hasn’t elected a statewide Republican since just prior to the Trump era, and the Colorado GOP has become such a corrupt joke over the past decade that general-election voters, at the state level, just don’t take Republican candidates seriously anymore.

How are they supposed to when a guy like Marx is the man to beat?

Democrat Phil Weiser, who defeated U.S. Senator Michael Bennet in their party’s primary, will assuredly become Colorado’s next governor. The only real question is by how wide of a margin. If he gets to run against Marx (which is my hunch), he could end up setting a new state record.

Yes, Democrats are riding high here, but not without some controversy of their own. To the surprise of many (including me), Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist and first-time candidate, defeated longtime incumbent Diana DeGette for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District. DeGette has held that seat since literally before Kiros was born.

Kiros was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization committed to a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Her campaign platform reflected as much: Medicare for All, public housing, abolishing ICE, and the obligatory U.S. arms embargo on Israel. Kiros has framed 9/11 as a natural result of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and campaigned with controversial figures like Hasan Piker (who has outright said the United States “deserved” 9/11). She’s also called the 10/7 attack an “inevitable consequence” of Israeli “apartheid,” and has accused Israel of committing “genocide in Palestine.”

Since Kiros’s Denver-based congressional district is deep blue, her general election will simply be a formality. My state will soon have a democratic socialist representative in Washington — perhaps a left-wing version of fellow Colorado congresswoman, Lauren Boebert.

We sure know how to pick ‘em.

Truth be told, I love living in Colorado. It’s a beautiful state with all kinds of wonderful offerings, and I believe most Coloradans are friendly, hard-working, reasonable people. But our state parties, and therefore our larger political environment, are absolute messes. That may not make us terribly unique in this country, especially right now… but it’s still depressing.

It’s also dangerous.

“You can’t have just one sane party,” conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg argued in a recent column. “You need two sane parties. The crazier or more extreme one party is, the more permission the other party has to be crazy and extreme. The only way to prove your party isn’t crazy is to police the crazies on your own side. Period. Strong parties can do that. Cowardly, anemic parties-in-name-only can’t or won’t.”

The rise of people like Victor Marx and Melat Kiros, as high-profile representatives of their respective parties, illustrates his point.

Ten years ago, it would have been hard to imagine either candidate even making it on a primary ballot. But now that we’ve normalized crazy, all bets are off.

Share

“You’re not going to put this on T.V., are you?”

In September of 1988, CBS News’ 48 Hours did an episode on the smoking war — the deepening conflict between smokers and non-smokers (and the role government should or shouldn’t play).

I traveled to San Leandro, California, where the battle was raging, to cover both sides of the argument.

(You all might get a kick out of the last scene).

Read more

Welcome to episode 111 of Bernie Goldberg’s No BS Zone.

On this abbreviated episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly discuss the recent primary wins by Democratic Socialists, and what is means for the Democratic Party and the country.

Also: Happy 4th of July, everyone!

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

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

But now the two sides have finally found common ground.

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

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

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

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

Read more

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

That’s not a good trajectory for the country.

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

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

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

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

So long from Wyoming!

Share

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

“The eye of the storm is nearing Texas.”

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

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

Read more