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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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…

Sir John—I’m hearing about an alleged plot by some anti-Trump fanatics to conduct a drone attack during the UFC Fight at the White House. Your thoughts? —“Tapped Out” regard from The Emperor

I think the plot was probably more serious that the baseline media coverage of it would suggest, Emperor. Though the plot was foiled in the planning stage, some of the (at least) five plotters involved were serious, committed people. Thankfully, law enforcement acted quickly on a tip by a teenage suspect’s mother. Who knows how close the crew would have otherwise gotten to actually harming and/or killing attendees. I’m sure the event was very secure, but with drone attacks, you never know what can slip through.

Just one more note: From what I’ve read, the plotters were less motivated by feelings for Trump than they were an anti-government ideology. Not that that matters in the context of the planned violence itself.

Unlike 99% of the Democrats, you—a conservative—supported the Iran War (Donald Trump’s policy, despite you disliking Trump). But this week, after you criticized the Trump administration for how they’re working on ending the war (largely in the Iranian regime’s favor) you were accused of parroting Hakeem Jeffries’ “talking points.” WTF? — Alex D.

That’s a comment section for you, Alex: people saying really strange things.

What you’re describing is reflexive partisanship. Those on the Right who suffer from it consider any and all criticisms of Donald Trump to be leftist. Sufferers on the Left consider any and all alignments with Trump to be ultra-MAGA. In reality, principled positions transcend partisan interests.

This [photo below] is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. It’s real! Your thoughts, sir? — Ben G.

Oh, it’s absolutely fantastic, Ben! It’s no secret that the Obamas and Bidens don’t like each other, but Obama (or at least his social-media person) consciously excluding the Bidens from his expressed affection and admiration for the other First Families is comedy gold.

As an example of lasting impact, more than a decade ago president Obama's High Tech Act created Electronic Healthcare Records. EHR created negative and lasting impact on the health care industry. You have accused Trump of action with lasting negative consequences. Can you be specific about a Trump action that will have negative impact a decade from now? — Al

Just one, Al? I could go down a number of avenues here, including the tremendous damage he’s needlessly caused with longstanding foreign allies, key security alliances, and previously reliable trade partners (while bending over backwards to appease Putin and other sworn enemies of America). There’s also the national distrust he has aggressively stoked in our major institutions — including our very system of democracy — for purely self-serving reasons. That stuff alone will require years of repair, assuming they even can be repaired by future presidents and/or congresses.

But if you want one negative consequence of President Trump that I’m certain will have lasting effects well beyond ten years from now, I’ll point you to the national debt and entitlements.

During the Obama years, conservatives understood that our surging national debt, driven mainly by our broken entitlement programs, was a looming catastrophe. Following George W. Bush’s failed reform efforts a few years earlier, Paul Ryan and other GOP leaders passed multiple House entitlement-reform bills (later studies showed that any of those plans would have worked). Those efforts died, however, under a Democratic president and Senate. After Republicans won full control in 2016, and had their best opportunity to finally address the situation, Trump adopted the Democrats’ position of blocking all major-entitlement reforms, vowing a veto-threat and political retribution for any Republican who presented one. He then accelerated spending (outpacing Obama even before the pandemic), signed into law several trillion more in debt (he’s added more than any president by far), and continues to keep major entitlement-reforms off the table, even with Republicans controlling everything again. The national debt is now racing toward $40 trillion, and Social Security is projected to become insolvent in just six years.

Both parties, of course, own this catastrophe. But Trump’s party-wide imposed surrender of the issue to the Democrats — now twice at times when the supposed “fiscally conservative” party controlled everything — has squandered our ability to fix it, and has guaranteed immense fiscal pain for our country, my kids, and my future grandkids.

John-- Do you, as I do, foresee the Iranian Guard still continue attacking at will as they "have their own agenda" separate from the Iranian politicians who are supposedly negotiating with our government? If a so-called deal evolves, the Guard still continues to be active, carry much hatred, and took vows to forever attack. — Sharon H.

There have of course been some big developments, Sharon, since you asked this question. The Trump administration has made huge, Obama-esque concessions to the Iranian regime, from which I can only assume the regime will sort themselves out, reorganize, and get back to regular working order.

John, I just read where JD Vance is going on the View. He’s been on ABC and NBC as well. I’ve also seen Trump on CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN. Obviously partisan political anti Trump Networks. Conversely, Why did Biden never go on Fox News. And for that matter, Harris, Schumer, Pelosi, etc… I’m an Independent, so I favor neither Party. Facing live, tough, political questions, to me, is a part of leadership. And it shows voters a candidate can defend their policies under opposition media scrutiny. And Both Trump and Biden bring that on themselves. And especially Trump with all his theatrics. But all politicians do. Thanks for all you and Bernie do. — Rob O.

Broadly speaking, the Trump administration has made itself pretty accessible to the media (except for the Pentagon) — certainly more so than most administrations. That’s to their credit, and — as you describe — it can also be of benefit to both political leaders and the country. I think more Democrats should indeed talk to right-of-center media outlets.

It should be noted that JD Vance’s appearance on The View was a little different, in that he was promoting his new book. From what I understand, going on The View is great for book sales (even when the hosts don’t like the author or his/her views). The same was true of The Daily Show, back when Jon Stewart hosted it. It’s about exposure. Thus, publishing companies and agents put pressure on their authors to go on such potentially hostile shows. In other words, these particular appearances are less about leadership, and more about making money.

John: What is your reaction to this cease-fire deal Trump just signed with Iran? — Steve R.

You sent this question, Steve, before my column on the topic went out. Here it is.

Bernie & John. Great podcast, as always. You might be the only sane persons politically in America today. To his eternal disgrace, Trump, who has the emotional intelligence of a ten-year old, one day smears the democratically-elected leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as a "f-----g idiot' and the next day professes his "respect" for the new Ayatollah in Iran (or the wounded son of the last one). While the Democratic Party has become the Antisemitic Party. Disgusting. Where are people like me and your listeners supposed to go politically? Bernie in 2028? Or if not Bernie, John? All you need is a hat to throw into the ring. — Jay B.

Thanks Jay. The good news (for everyone) is that I’m certain there are still sane people in our country besides Bernie and me. Lol. Truth be told, most Americans are pretty normal folks. But the most politically engaged among us also tend to be the most politically radicalized, which has led to both parties getting behind some really bad candidates and representatives over the last several years.

Since the spring of 2016, I’ve been an independent (non-party affiliated) voter, but I still get to vote in Republican primaries here in Colorado, which I always do. I support fit candidates, and withhold my vote from unfit ones. I do think there’s going to be an opportunity, after Trump leaves office, for Republican leaders to help rebuild the conservative movement, and give us some viable candidates (including presidential candidates) that people like you and I can feel comfortable voting for.

Fingers crossed.

Share

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

JD Vance is having quite a moment. He’s in the middle of what will likely be his most public week as vice president. While working the national media circuit to promote his new book, he’s been on the front line of having to answer for what many critics, and high-profile Trump supporters alike, are describing as a historic American surrender to the Iranian regime.

I’m talking, of course, about the (now signed) US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) he helped “negotiate” to end the Iran War. Following months of military dominance over the regime, and wiping out many of its leaders, the Trump administration shocked the world this week by rewarding the Iranians with previously unthinkable concessions. Those concessions include allowing the Iranians to keep their nuclear program, as well as their ballistic missiles program. Its permits them to continue funding their terror proxies. It lifts sanctions against them, and ends Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon (despite Israel not being party to the deal). It also gives the regime hundreds of billions of dollars.

What we get in return is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (which was open before Trump started dropping bombs in February), and — in the mold of former president Barack Obama’s failed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — a gentleman’s agreement that Iran won’t build nuclear bombs.

Good luck with that.

Vance has seemed weirdly unfazed by our nation’s humiliation on the world stage, enjoying some good laughs on podcasts and cable news shows. Maybe he’s just excited about his book. Or maybe it’s because ending the war — even at the expense of our national honor, our national security, and the security of our allies — lines up well with his well-documented nationalist beliefs. Heck, it could even be that he just likes going out in front of the cameras, and assigning a bunch of outrageous, made-up positions and beliefs to fictional critics.

After falsely insisting earlier in the week that accurate details leaked on the MOU were Iranian propaganda, Vance went on Megyn Kelly’s show, repeated the lie, and addressed those (including longtime Trump allies) who supported and have defended the president’s decision to go to war, but are now in dismay of the administration caving to Iran’s demands.

Vance claimed those individuals “don’t have an alternative,” and that “they’re proposing an endless conflict.” He said they “want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead.”

That, of course, is nonsense. Aside from a number of alternatives having been presented to end the stalemate situation with the Strait of Hormuz and broader Iran War, the only person of note who suggested the death of every Iranian was President Trump himself.

“Not since Obama has a politician been this adept at destroying strawmen and misrepresenting his opponents' position,” the Washington Examiner’s David Harsanyi responded to Vance. “Most ‘hawks’ want the Iranians to be alive and free rather than under the boot of the Islamist regime [Vance’s] so chummy with. It's his capitulation that creates ‘endless’ conflict.”

President Trump has since publicly defended the MOU as well, making a number of hair-raising comments about the agreement from the G7 Summit (flanked by a giddy Howard Lutnick and a dead-inside-looking Marco Rubio). These terrible concessions ultimately fall on Trump, of course. He’s the leader of the administration and the president of the United States. But one has to wonder if some joking around the president did during his G7 press conference was a foreshadowing of things to come.

“If [the Iran deal] works out, I'm going to take the credit,” said Trump. “If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD. You better be careful, JD… Yeah, I like that idea. I think it's a good idea.”

The line got its intended laughter, but as economist and author, David L. Bahnsen, commented, “In what world could any just modestly intelligent person not believe this is actually 100% true?”

Others, including commentator Emily Zanotti, see a similar benefit to Trump in making Vance the face of this deal. Posting on X, Zanotti wrote, “The funny thing is, I think the WH is sending JD out because he’s about to get stabbed in the back. The Trump Admin has gone a little too long without sending a lamb to slaughter, and I’m not sure JD here realizes he’s in the chute.”

She may well be right, including the part about Vance being oblivious to how poorly he comes across in all of this. It’s no secret that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been outshining Vance in recent months, including catching up to the vice president in 2028 GOP presidential preference polls. And as we saw in his first term, Trump is more than happy to throw his vice president under the bus once his usefulness has expired.

The Dispatch’s Nick Catoggio has a bit different take. He thinks Vance actually relishes this opportunity to get on the “right side” of a war that most Americans had opposed from the beginning, perhaps having made the calculation that it will help him politically come 2028. That may indeed be Vance’s calculus, but if it is, I’m not sure it makes him any less hapless than Zanotti suggested.

It’s hard to imagine that even an outspoken non-interventionist type like JD Vance could successfully distance himself from the war decisions of an administration he’s a top member of. Not to mention that the vast majority of Republican voters, who Vance would need to woe in the 2028 primary, supported the Iran War. There’s also the question of how much trouble Iran will be stirring up two years from now, as a result of our retreat.

As many may remember, most Americans also wanted us out of Afghanistan. They wanted that war over. That’s why both President Trump and President Biden felt comfortable working toward that objective, and bringing the war to an official end. But once the U.S. did withdrawal, under Biden, and Americans witnessed the horrific (albeit widely predicted) results of that withdrawal, Biden’s approval ratings tanked and never recovered.

Most Americans dislike war and military intervention abroad, but they also don’t like our country being humiliated on the world stage… especially by terrorists.

Whether Vance realizes or cares about it, he’s currently the face of that humiliation. And he seems right at home in the role.

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

The bluntness of Short’s answer surprised me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s really that simple.

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

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

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

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

What a deal!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you do, I’d love to hear why.

Share

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps!

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I detailed back in January:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annoying is the right word, Ben.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

A recent YouGov poll revealed something troubling that a number of other polls (along with a fair amount of anecdotal evidence online) have suggested for some time: a significant portion of Democrats believe that the assassination attempts on President Trump’s life were “staged.”

26% believe it of the incident at Trump’s golf course. 34% attribute it to what went down last month at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And a whopping 42% believe that the shooting at Butler Farm Show Grounds in 2024, during which Trump was shot in the ear and a spectator was killed, was phony-baloney.

In other words, the more dramatic the incident, the more likely it was staged.

Many on the political right have been touting these findings as proof that the Democratic Party has a serious conspiracy-theory problem on their hands.

Pro-Trump columnist Byron York called the situation a “Democratic fantasy world,” and I’m inclined to agree with him. I think it’s delusional to buy into these occurrences being staged, absent of proof, and based primarily (if not entirely) on the notion that being targeted for (and escaping) political violence elevates Trump’s stature… and perceptually broad-strokes those who strongly oppose him as being aligned with violent lunatics.

Sure, some would argue that Trump’s lack of character, and his long history of gaslighting the American people, should not afford him the benefit of the doubt. They would say it warrants at least considering the idea that he and his team orchestrated these incidents — especially the Butler one. After all, the imagery of Trump rising from under his podium with blood streaming down his face, clenching a fist in the air and encouraging his supporters to “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, felt like something straight out of a Hollywood production.

But that’s the same deeply flawed logic used by 9/11 Truthers, and those who’ve long insisted that the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage. It’s built on the premise that something so visually dynamic and conducive to a preferred narrative can’t possibly be on the up and up. This is a mindset that values emotional interpretation over factual evaluation, and it can lead to the latter being disregarded entirely.

Suffice to say, that’s not a healthy thing for society. Sometimes it’s even outright dangerous, which is why rational and reasonable people of good faith ought to call it out whenever they see it.

But that’s not quite what’s happening with much of the push-back I’m observing against the “staged assassination” stuff. Far too many of those appropriately denouncing it are doing so from the bottom of the same conspiratorial nesting box.

To this day, national polls show that 60-70% of Republicans still believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Five and a half years later, despite the ongoing theatrics (including from our current president), the facts are no more on those people’s side than they are on the side of those who believe in the “staged assassination” nonsense. Those willing to call out one of those groups, but not the other, are part of the problem.

Case in point, if you read Byron York’s columns, or follow him on social media, you know that he’s barely been critical at all of the widespread Republican belief that Joe Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election. In fact, York has been pretty understanding of (and even sympathetic to) the view, developing arguments over the years that minimize, trivialize, and otherwise downplay its significance. In typical York fashion, he’s put far more focus on what he sees as Democratic “overreaction” to the falsity.

But when it comes to the belief that attempts on Donald Trump’s life were staged, York laments “a political atmosphere in which some people will believe anything about their hated opponent.”

Go figure.

On a side note, it seems that there are some folks who actually believe both of these major conspiracy theories. 7% of Republicans in the YouGov poll think that the Butler assassination-attempt was staged, and, for some reason, twice as many think that the one at the correspondents’ dinner was staged. The numbers for independents are in the low 20s for each. Comparably, about 9% of Democrats think Trump won the 2020 election, and around 20% of independents believe that. This overlap would at least suggest that some bipartisanship and intellectual consistency still exists in this country… though not in a positive way.

The sad reality is that large portions of both major parties believe in thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories, some of which have been harmful to our democratic foundations. What’s needed to combat the problem is a strengthening of our shared sense of reality, and a serious commitment to weeding out misinformation.

Unfortunately, in these deeply polarized times — in which partisan division is both a political resource and a very lucrative business model — that’s a very tall order.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to your questions…

How was President Obama needlessly divisive? I asked you this once before but you didn’t answer.

Granted, one instance was when he said the Cambridge police responding to a possible break-in “acted stupidly.” That remark was stupid, and he stepped on the message of his press conference (I have no idea what it was). But he apparently learned from it. He had that “beer summit,” which was better than nothing. In the polarized aftermath of the Trevon Martin case he obliquely emphasized with those outraged by the acquittal but ended up by saying something to effect that we must respect the system. He hit the right cord. Once, in his 2008 campaign he made an off-hand reference to racial prejudice against him. Other that those two isolated instances I don’t know how he was NEEDLESSLY divisive. Many of his supporters were divisive, but that’s a different matter. — Bob H.

Hi Bob. I think you’re illustrating what Jessica Riedl was describing, in that most Obama supporters simply didn’t see it (though, as a longtime reader, I’m guessing you read at least some of my several writings on the topic years ago). I think it’s even more difficult for those people to see it in retrospect, now that we’ve been in the Trump-era of American politics for over a decade. Trump, like I stated in my original point, has been far worse, and more blatant about it (including borrowing techniques from Obama, and injecting them with steroids).

Anyway, if you want some examples of how I described Obama, here you go…

Obama liked to present himself as our country’s moral conscience. If you agreed with him, you were doing right by America. If you opposed him, you were a petty, uncaring person who was doing harm to our country and its citizens. Case in point, Obama and members of his administration liked to refer to their opposition as people who were “betting against America” and “on the wrong side of history.” Obama also made a habit of beginning sentences with, “There are those who say…” or “There are Republicans who say…,” and then finishing those sentences with a straw-man argument that no Republican (or anyone else) was making. His supporters would nod along, while righties understandably resented having false, demeaning positions assigned to them, from which Obama reliably declared the moral high-ground over.

This was a large part of his Obamacare campaign. He portrayed Republicans as cruel and callous for opposing his legislation, despite that legislation being opposed by most Americans, and premised on multiple false selling-points (including Politfact’s “Lie of the Year”). As someone who personally lost both his affordable insurance plan and his doctor as a result of Obamacare, I can’t tell you how frustrating it was to be told that my (and millions of others’) objection to it meant that I lacked compassion and wanted others to suffer.

On fiscal policy, you may recall that Obama, at one point, called a truce of sorts, inviting Republicans to present serious debt-reduction and entitlement-reform plans to him for a good-faith discussion. When Paul Ryan answered the call, Obama invited Ryan for a front-row seat to his speech on the topic. Obama then proclaimed from the stage (and to the world) that Ryan’s budget would essentially lead to the destruction of America, including letting bridges collapse and forcing autistic and disabled kids to fend for themselves. It was an epic double-cross, and a shameful display of hyper-partisan demagoguery. (By the way, recent studies have shown that Ryan’s rather modest reforms would have put our country on a much better trajectory — both with our national debt and entitlements). Glad we dodged that bullet!

As Bob Woodward described quite thoroughly in his book, The Price of Politics, Obama never made any serious attempt to work with Republicans, yet insisted at every opportunity that he was bending over backwards to accommodate them. It was pure gaslighting.

Obama spent the first two years of his presidency blaming every negative metric there was on the Bush administration. With the economy still struggling by 2012 (along with Obama’s poll numbers), Obama built his reelection campaign on a class warfare theme. He created corporate scapegoats and stoked jealousy among the electorate. Wealthy people were portrayed as villains who weren’t paying their “fair share,” and the middle class was told it was wealthy people (not failed public policy preventing a solid recovery) who were causing their fiscal woes. Obama even refused to denounce his super PAC for falsely accusing his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, of somehow killing a cancer victim with his greediness.

The Obama administration went after conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh, making them the face of their opposition. They declared that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization, warned other news outlets not to follow Fox’s lead, and even went as far as to trying to eliminate FNC's presence in the White House press pool (which other media organizations loudly denounced, and pressured an end to). The administration referred to the Tea Party as “teabaggers” (a sexually derogatory term), portrayed the movement as inherently racist, and called them “hostage takers” and “terrorists.”

And don’t even get me started on the “War on Women.”

I could go on and on, Bob, but I’m hoping at least some of these examples jog your memory. Unfortunately, a lot of Obama supporters still dismiss them (and many others) out of hand, and claim that Obama was only divisive to racists.

Others (as you did in a separate comment) like to evoke non-controversies like the “tan suit” stuff, in order to dismiss Republicans as being comically opposed to anything having to do with Obama. In reality, I can count how many people gave a s*** about Obama’s tan suit on one hand. As someone who watched way too many hours of Fox News back then, I hadn’t even heard of the supposed “scandal” until The Daily Show spliced together a handful of clips, and presented it as some big blow-up on the Right (which, again, it wasn’t). When lefties bring up the “tan suit” to dismiss criticism of Obama, it’s not much different to me than when MAGA folks dismiss criticism of Trump as people just objecting to his “mean tweets.” It’s a nonsense narrative.

Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough on this topic. You got your money’s worth this week, Bob. 😉

What do you think about political candidates running AI video-ads depicting their opponents saying and going things they’ve never done? I’m seeing more of that. — Ben G.

I don’t like it, Ben. AI has gotten so good in this arena (among others) that it’s almost impossible these days to the tell the difference between the real deal and a fabrication. I think that’s potentially dangerous, and not just in the realm of politics. Our country’s citizens already have a serious problem with unhesitatingly buying into propaganda and bias-confirming falsities. This type of thing makes it even worse.

I get the impression there was recently yet another round in the Dispatch vs. Bulwark wars, with some NR aligned people also getting in the scrum, apparently set off by Bill Kristol endorsing Court packing, which I find really confusing. I mean, I certainly think that Court packing is a stupid idea, to say the least. But I am a bit confused about why that specific comment inspired another round of fighting over Who Has The More Principled Approach To The Trump Era.

Personally, I think Bulwarkism is commendable in being anti- Trump, but lately they’re starting to forget *why* they’re anti- Trump, by playing footsie with illiberal ideas (like Court Packing) and elements on the Left (like Hasan Piker). And that although many individuals at NR have stuck to their principles, unfortunately the publication as a whole is, if not quite pro-Trump, anti- anti- Trump by focusing on and being way more outraged by examples of Leftist excesses than Trumpian ones.

I think TD is doing the best at balancing various principles, but even they aren’t perfect. I mean, this week they platformed Jeremiah Johnson, who wrote eloquently against Democrats embracing Hasan Piker ... Yet also recently encouraged people to vote for Graham Platner, because “control of the Senate is too important to risk”. I didn’t even realize until that post that Johnson is apparently a Democrat, but at least that is a defense against the charge that TD is engaging in the kind of performative anti- leftism that I certainly think NR does at times. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. There was indeed a big Bulwark/Dispatch online hullabaloo, though I didn’t see much Dispatch involvement in it. As you said, it began with Bill Kristol’s nod to court-packing, which drew criticism from National Review’s Charles Cooke, which led to Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende making the below observation:

There really wasn’t a reason to drag The Dispatch into the conversation for a Bulwark comparison, other than that MAGA and anti-anti-Trumpers hate both of them for being critical of Trump, and like to pretend they’re basically the same (which is very much false).

Anyway, very broadly speaking, I think Sean was right (his post went viral). And people at The Bulwark actually agreed with him:

I also mostly agree with your assessments, Aylene, of the three publications mentioned. I’ll just add a couple of things:

• I like (and am friendly with) some of the people at The Bulwark, but a number of their commentators sound like Democratic hacks in their reflexive opposition of Trump. If one has to change their position on an issue, just to get on the opposite side of it as Trump, their argument lacks principle and credibility. A lot of people may not care about those things, but I do.

• Regarding Jeremiah Johnson (who’s been a Dispatch contributor for some time), he’s indeed a centrist Democrat whose focus is on restoring sanity to his party — including calling out its extremists. He’s kind of an independent outlier, which I think attracted The Dispatch to him in the first place. Thus, his position on Piker doesn’t surprise me at all. I hadn’t heard about his position on Platner, which I’m confident no one else writing for The Dispatch shares.

As I’ve stated many times, from a conservative point of view, I think The Dispatch does the best job of the three media organizations.

Sir John — Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson’s policies seem to be what spurred on the Starbucks Empire exodus from Progressive Leftist Seattle to Conservative Nashville Tennessee. I don’t know how many Starbucks bigwigs and employees voted for Katie Wilson, but for those that did, what the hell did they expect would happen after she gained power? For that matter, what the hell did Mayor Katie Wilson expect that Starbucks and other businesses would do because of her policies? For the record, I’m not a fan of Starbucks OR progressive politicians, but I can’t help relishing the schadenfreude when I see progressive leftists reaping the curses of their own short-sighted foolishness. Your thoughts? — “Starbucks Liberal Latte Tears” regards from The Emperor

Like you, Emperor, I don’t care much about Pacific Northwest politics or Starbucks coffee. If a business environment becomes too difficult in a particular region or municipality, I’m all for private businesses moving to friendlier ones. My hope, whenever something like this happens, is for governing bodies to learn a lesson from it and change public policy. And if they don’t, my hope is for constituents to vote them out of office and elect leaders who will. Unfortunately, in these big-city strongholds, that rarely happens. Some of the most hardened ideologies are disconnected from considerations of success and failure. It’s very weird, but it’s sadly the reality. Decline is often a choice.

In regard to your Rubio column and your question about whether the MAGA base would support him in 2028, I’m seeing many of them online say they would. I know that’s not concrete evidence of anything, and don’t know if they’d still feel that way two years from now. Something funny though: When I ask these people what was wrong with Rubio in 2016, they say “he wasn’t ready yet.” And Donald Trump was??? — Alex D.

Alex, I’ve been running into that exact same thing online. It’s as if they’re all reading from the same script, and you’re right to be amused by it. Rubio was by no means perfect in 2016. He tripped up a few times in his campaigning. But good grief, he’d been a U.S. Senator for five years, served on multiple important committees, and may have had the strongest grasp of issues and policies of anyone who ran that year. Trump, on the other hand, knew nothing about governance or public policy, and often spoke nonsensically (albeit defiantly) about both. He won the nomination largely on insults, attitude, and his celebrity persona. The notion that Rubio was a novice in comparison is absurd.

Share

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