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.

“The old way in Japan is crumbling, as old ways always do.”

In early 1989, I traveled with the 48 Hours crew to Japan, where I worked a couple different stories on the country’s tighter embrace of Western capitalism and American culture.

Some of the people I met were excelling in life. Others struggled with workloads and the cost of living.

Read more

The other day, as videos from Lindsey Graham’s funeral began popping up online, I got a little curious and clicked on one. In the shot, Fox News host Sean Hannity was at a podium, shifting from eulogizing Graham (a longtime friend) to addressing President Trump, who was seated in attendance.

“Lindsey, Mr. President, I would argue in my mind, probably has a heavenly version of Mar-a-Lago,” Hannity said. “It may even be a little bigger. He may have a little more gold in the Oval Office in his mansion in heaven. And I wouldn't be surprised if he added one big beautiful ballroom and an arch somewhere on the property.”

Hannity then softened his voice, straightened his lips, and added, “Because he would obviously want to duplicate his dearest friend in life.”

Like most people reading this, I didn’t know Graham other than as a public figure. We had no relationship, we never met, and I was a critic of some of the things he did in office. Still, I was saddened by what I heard in the video, and Reason Magazine’s Billy Binion captured why.

“I genuinely am sorry for their loss,” Binion remarked online. “But using a funeral as an opportunity to worship the president is really debasing. Lindsey Graham's funeral should be about Lindsey Graham. It should not be about Donald Trump.”

That’s not a dig on Trump, of course. Our president loves flattery, but he certainly didn’t write those lines for the Fox host.

I found Hannity’s “duplicate” comment particularly off-putting. The only context I can think of, in which such a remark might not sound insulting, would be its direction toward a father in honor of his son. Otherwise, it evokes memories of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character in the film, Single White Female.

Now, one can certainly make an argument (as some responding to Binion did) that the late senator would have indeed appreciated those words from Hannity. While Graham likely didn’t consider Trump his “dearest friend in life,” or aspire to spend eternity in a remodel of Trump’s country club, the senator did dedicate much of his last decade in office presenting himself (and therefore shaping his legacy) as a loyal defender, flatterer, and hype-man for the president.

Therefore, the thought is: Wouldn’t Graham embrace — even at his own funeral — his loving memory being defined by his unapologetic, over-the-top fealty to Donald Trump?

My guess… would be a strong no. And I think Hannity did his friend a clear disservice by memorializing him as such.

Hannity knows better than most people that the politics we see in front of cameras and microphones are largely performative — actors and actresses playing a role. Yes, there are real-life consequences that come from the narratives and storylines these folks produce, but that’s an argument for a different column.

For better or worse, Graham’s behind-the-scenes goal was to achieve greater political influence, and be included in important conversations and decisions on public policy. He wanted to be the man in the room. He wanted to remain in a position to make a difference. As The Dispatch’s Michael Warren wrote in Graham’s passing, it’s what demonstrably directed his political career — from his love for the camera, to his days as a John McCain-aligned maverick, to his profound conversion to a Trump devotee.

Like others in politics, he made sacrifices (some quite steep) to get where he wanted to go. It’s absolutely fair to criticize the choices he made, and even believe that some of the things he did in office were downright terrible (I certainly do). But I would hope that even those who didn’t have a particularly fond view of the senator would wince at him being used as a self-serving prop at his own funeral. I mean, Hannity (who again, knows better) made Graham sound like he fell asleep every night wearing Trump-embroidered pajamas. How about a little dignity?

I feel similarly when invited speakers, at other high-profile funerals, use the opportunity as a political soapbox to — against the family’s wishes — promote their own political cause.

It’s icky. It’s disrespectful.

On its barest terms, a funeral is about honoring and remembering someone who passed away. It’s not about advancing a personal role, or celebrating an attendee at the expense of the person who died.

In just about every culture other than politics, people understand such things.

Share

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg returns with a restored voice to talk to John Daly about the civil war within the Democratic Party, Republican prospects heading into the midterms, the Senate filibuster, and President Trump’s WHCD performance.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Once upon a time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a shiny object in the world of politics. She was young, attractive, a social democrat before that kind of thing became trendy. She was on TV a lot but no one really took her too seriously, certainly not as a real presidential prospect.

Cut to today.

A new poll has AOC as the top choice among Democratic candidates in the 2028 New Hampshire presidential primary. According to the poll, she draws much of her support from self-described socialists and progressives.

Let’s stipulate that New Hampshire isn’t representative of the rest of the United States. It’s whiter and it’s better educated. So if she decides to run, and if she were to win in New Hampshire, that doesn’t tell us a lot about her chances to win her party’s nomination, let alone win the presidential election.

But don’t write her off.

Political etiquette — (how’s that for a contradiction in terms?) — dictates that candidates with presidential ambitions don’t announce their intentions until after the midterm elections. That’s when the 2028 presidential campaigns begin for real.

But Kamala Harris has already said she’s thinking about running. Odds are she wouldn’t stand a chance of winning the nomination. She lost the last time around — and didn’t impress anybody in the process.

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…

(Feel free to wait to answer this one if you haven’t watched it yet but plan to):

So now that The Odyssey movie is out, what do you think of the weird tantrums some Right Wingers had over it? To me, much of it is based on the assumption that there’s ONE canon version of the story that Nolan’s version must be judged against. But even before we get to the “Woke casting” or whatever; the movie actually isn’t just based on the Odyssey. The character played by Ellen Page, Sinon, doesn’t appear in the Odyssey at all, but does appear in the Aeineid and later works.

Now, the “Odysseus tricked Sinon into tricking the Trojans to let the Horse in” Nolan version differs from the Aeineid. But that version of the Troy story is already very different from the Odyssey or Iliad. And Odysseus as a character has already been re-imagined many times. Homer may have portrayed him positively, but Sophocles made him more of a problematic anti - hero, and Euripides basically made him into a Greek version of Tywin Lannister, a scheming villain who is responsible for pretty much all the atrocities committed by the Greeks.

So I don’t find it at all problematic or outrage worthy for Nolan to re - imagine the Odysseus story yet again. —Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I haven’t seen the movie yet, and though I think Nolan is a great director (I’ve been fan since Memento), I’m not really in a hurry to see it; I’ll get to it eventually.

The backlash from the Right, prior to the movie being released, brought back memories of 2020’s The Hunt. Some may remember that lots of folks (including cable-news commentators) on the MAGA-right trashed the The Hunt (based on its trailer) for glamorizing violence against "deplorables." Trump himself even called the movie “racist,” for whatever reason. Then… it was released, and people actually watched it and discovered that the "deplorables" were the protagonists, and liberal elites were the villains. It was a ridiculous controversy.

This time with The Odyssey, however, I don’t think most of the backlash to it was sincere. I think it was largely fueled by play-acting right-wing “influencers” who figured they could get lots of attention/clicks by pointing to the “woke” casting of a transgender actor/actress, and making a culture-war battle out of it. I don’t think the story of The Odyssey or Odysseus was even much of a consideration to them. Matt Walsh, for example, who’s been very outspoken on this issue, has apparently never even read the book.

Personally, I find this stuff exhausting. As an online acquaintance remarked the other day, “A right-winger calling something ‘woke’ is starting to mean about as much as a left-winger calling something ‘racist.’” Our country has serious issues. Stuff like this isn’t among them.

A recent Harvard-Harris Poll showed that 60% of Americans between 18 and 24 years old support Hamas over Israel. Do you believe those numbers, and what/who do you blame? — Alex D.

I am indeed inclined to believe those numbers, Alex, and I blame social media for a lot of it. There’s just so much propaganda (much of it foreign) and other disinformation out there. It’s pushed (with the help of dopey, supposedly cool “influencers” like Hasan Piker) to an age group that’s not exactly well-versed in critical thinking. That’s not to say that older folks aren’t susceptible to the same type of online indoctrination (they are), but anti-Israel sentiment is primarily aimed at younger Americans.

Sir John: why won’t Trump just obliterate the Mullahs in Iran and the IRGC? It’s obvious they don’t want to make a deal with him. It’s obvious that what he’s been doing up to this point isn’t working. He told the Iranian citizens that “Help is on the way..” A victory over the Mullahs and thus freeing the Iranian people would be a victory for Trump and the Republicans going into the midterms. So the question is: why won’t Trump and Hegseth just do it? it your thoughts? —“No More Mullahs & IRGC” regards from The Emperor

If you’re asking me why Trump doesn’t kill all of Iran’s current regime, and let the citizens pick up the pieces from there, I would argue that’s a huge oversimplification of the matter. It’s worth remembering that Iran is roughly the size of Alaska, and over 93 million people live there. What you’re suggesting is much easier said than done.

But to try and get to the basics of your question, Emperor, Trump clearly doesn’t want to commit to complete regime change in Iran. By his own admission, he (foolishly) believed this operation would be similar what we did in Venezuela — in how our military took out their top leadership in very short order, and then the administration worked with the remaining regime toward a more positive future. Aside from Venezuela’s future still being very much an uncertainty (despite Trump rhetorically treating it like an enduring victory), the “partial regime change” model was never going to work with Iran, in part due to the religious ideology factor. Full regime change could work, but it would require a lot of time, patience, alliance-rebuilding, and military assets (including ground troops) that Trump doesn’t want to employ. He just wants this conflict over, and the Strait of Hormuz back open, which is why he made so many ridiculous concessions in the (now defunct) MOU.

Will he change his mind, and commit to full regime change at some point? It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely. I suspect this will end with some form of us cutting, running, and declaring victory.

Hey, how come you didn’t give us any Grand Lake pics? I liked your Yellowstone ones. — Ben G.

Here you go, Ben! The first three were from our trip earlier this week. The last two were from previous trips. Like I said, it’s beautiful. I wrote a personal substack about Grand Lake a couple years ago, if anyone’s interested.

Share

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

“What we’re seeing is the lunatic-fringe joining the mainstream — becoming the mainstream.”

In part three of my 48 Hours report from the NATPE convention in 1989, I covered the most outrageous syndicated television shows of the era, from American Gladiators, to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, to the attempted revival of Jackpot.

Read more

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