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 is now promising to send $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans hold the House and Senate. This is not just plain bribery, but in-your-face socialism. I thought Trump was supposed to be saving us from socialism (that’s the line anyway). Your take? — Alex D.

Many of my fellow righties hate when I say this, Alex, but it’s demonstrably true: Trump has done more socialist things, as U.S. president, than any other president in my lifetime… all while insisting that he’s saving the country from socialism. It’s pure gaslighting, and it’s been very sad to me how many of my fellow righties — many of whom still self-identify as conservatives — refuse to see through it (and even cheer it on).

This particular bribe (as you properly labeled it) would cost $1.3 trillion that we don’t have, and thus would be added to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $41 trillion). It would also drive inflation back up.

Now, the good news, purely from a fiscal perspective, is that Trump is also chronically dishonest. Since returning to the White House, he has promised $5,000 stimulus checks in the form of a “DOGE dividend," $2,000 stimulus checks in the form of a "tariff dividend," and $1,000 checks in the form of "savings" from expiring ACA subsidies. None of these things ever happened. Plus, he has an ‘out’ this time, because he knows Republicans are going to at least lose the House.

Still, Americans (especially conservatives) should be angered and embarrassed by this stuff.

Do you think the question, “Do you love America?” which on the surface is a pretty straightforward question, is now viewed thru a political lens, as almost everything in our society now is? What I mean is, people now read an underlying intent or agenda into the question, rather than accept it at face value. “Do you love America?” could be interpreted as “Do you love Donald Trump’s America?”, or a couple of years ago, “Do you love Joe Biden’s America?”.

If one has an unqualified love for America, why would one need to “Make America Great Again”? The implication is that America is NOT currently great. — John M.

I’m glad you asked this, John. I certainly don’t view that question through a political lens, by I know that a lot of Americans absolutely do.

A few months ago, I interviewed Kevin Williamson of The Dispatch, and we got into this very topic. He did a great job of explaining why so many Americans view that question differently based on who’s sitting in the Oval Office:

It’s important for Americans to remember that the president isn’t the country. He’s not even the government. He’s just the chief administrator of one branch of one level of the American government.

We have a tendency to have this kind of quasi-monarchist view of our country, in which it’s personified in some mystical way by the president who’s become this increasingly, strangely sacramental and spiritualized figure in American life, which is the root of so much of our political discomfort, I think.

When you have a president that you think of as the personification of your country, then one half of the country is always going to be sort of miserable and unhappy when they’re the ones out of power, because it feels like they don’t have that special connection to their country…

I think he’s absolutely right.

O’Reilly can be a polarizing figure, and I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s adamant that he is fact based on his reporting, and will not ever use anonymous sources. Also claims he has a staff of over 25 people working for him in vetting anything he reports. So when he said THIS on his show, it grabbed my attention. He was asked why the House Democratic votes under Speaker Pelosi were always unanimous, and he responded that she threatens to take away the campaign funds of any dissenters. Huh? And he also said nobody in the CMS media will ever report it. Have you or Bernie ever heard this? We’ve all heard she ran the House with an iron fist, but this sounds like extortion. And how would she have the authority to even do this. I know one thing, it seems to make sense. Because the Dems, unlike the GOP, always stuck together. Could Speaker Johnson do the same thing to get the votes he needs on critical legislation. Not saying I agree with it.

And one other thing. Unlike Fox News viewers, I’m not outraged by Bernie’s integrity (and yours), I’M THANKFUL FOR IT. It’s why I subscribe. — Rob O.

First of all, Rob, thanks again for the kinds words. We really appreciate them.

Regarding Pelosi, that’s not quite right (though it’s not totally wrong either). Democratic House votes were not unanimous under her. They were certainly highly unified by historical standards, but not unanimous. And the primary reason they were unified is that Pelosi wouldn’t even bring legislation to a vote until she was certain she had enough Democratic votes to get that legislation passed. Some people believe that made her a very effective House leader. I think it was a bad practice, because it stifled open congressional debate on legislation, which is sort of how the legislative process is supposed to work.

That said, there were indeed occasional reports of at least implied threats from Pelosi against fellow Democrats when it came to specific legislation, like the Build Back Better reconciliation package. The Democrats had a slim majority in the House at the time, and there were some Democratic holdouts who were trying to get some extra goodies. Behind closed doors, Pelosi reportedly implied that she would put a hold on their campaign funding if they didn’t fall in line. I don’t think this was standard operating procedure for Pelosi, but it was clearly part of her procedural arsenal.

I'm gobsmacked at this one- Trump posts an AI image of himself holding hands or arms with Dolly Parton after her death while everyone knows she was politically neutral, even refusing awards so as to NOT appear political. Dolly's sister Stella is furious, to say the least. This behavior has hit an all-time high, so, what's next? — Sharon H.

All-time high? In the grand scheme of things, Sharon, I think this is actually very small potatoes. It’s probably not even one of Trump’s top-10 most off-putting responses to a celebrity’s death (the mockery of Rob Reiner’s murder being number one). Heck, it’s probably not even in the top 1000 worst things he’s posted on social media.

Here’s how I broadly look at Trump’s behavior: America chose to send Donald Trump back to the White House after he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, caused a deadly riot/insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and showed-off stolen top-secret government documents (including nuclear and war plans) to random people at his country club. After that, the sky was the limit. Someone with Trump’s ego could have only interpreted his reelection as societal validation of his actions, and a deeper permission structure to say and do whatever he wanted for the next four years. Any trepidation from his first term (instilled by the much better presidential advisors he had back then) would essentially become nonexistent.

Thus, we’ve gotten mass pardons of criminals (including hundreds of violent ones), the blatant political-weaponization of the DOJ, the unprecedented personal-monetization of the presidency (that has at least quadrupled Trump’s net-worth), central planning of the U.S. economy, a left-wing crackpot in charge of HHS, a Fox News weekend host in charge of the DOD, etc. The list goes on.

So, in comparison, the Dolly Parton post isn’t even a blip on the radar (at least not my radar).

John: A recent poll showed that 92% of Americans - a record number - distrust the U.S. government. But the latest initiatives by both parties want to greatly expand the size and role of government. I'm having a hard time squaring these two seemingly contradictory situations. Can you explain this? — Steve R.

Yes. The explanation is that neither major political party has any interest in building or maintaining the public’s trust.

Republican leaders largely just do whatever Trump wants, and let him get away with all kinds of things they’d never tolerate from a Democratic president. Democratic leaders largely buried their heads in the sand (until they couldn’t any longer) over our previous president’s cognitive incapacity to do the job. Now Americans are watching wacky DSA candidates make inroads in the Democratic Party.

Neither party is taking on our nation’s biggest challenges, and proposing serious solutions to serious problems; they’re much too busy fueling culture battles, stoking grievance, bribing select constituencies, and burying us under mountains of the debt (while claiming it’s entirely the other side’s fault).

But as Bernie has pointed out numerous times, the unindicted co-conspirator in all of this is the American voter (92% of whom currently say they distrust the government). That’s who keeps putting these untrustworthy clowns in power. In most cases, I blame primary voters (and those who don’t bother participating in the primaries) more than I do general-election voters, but nonetheless, elections have consequences. And now… here we are.

Sir John — as we remember the terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda on 9/11, I’m hearing that some New Yorkers don’t want Mandani attending any anniversary acknowledgements because of his association with alleged terrorist sympathizers. Your thoughts? — “Never Forget!” regards from The Emperor

I suppose I can understand that point of view, Emperor, but as the mayor of New York City, Mamdani will assuredly be attending 9/11 anniversary events.

For years Trump has been making up stories about his actions and supposedly what he witnessed on 9/11/2001, including taking his “crew” down to Ground Zero and he and them helping with the rescue and recovery efforts. That didn’t happen, and yet he brought it up again this week during a speech, and added some story about two firemen picking him up and rushing him to safety. I’ve seen some people describe this as “stolen valor.” Do you agree? — Ben G.

Yes, I think that’s fair. By falsely claiming that he essentially ran toward the danger at Ground Zero, and participated in the work that actual heroes (who put themselves in real danger) were doing, he absolutely opened himself up for that criticism.

As an acquaintance of mine said the other day: “There was a time when a politician making up a story like Trump did about 9/11 would just totally and irrevocably sink them forever. And it was maybe only 12 years ago.”

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…

I have been and still am a fan of Bill O'Reilly but I agree he goes easier on President Trump than on others who display behavior similar to that of our president. My opinion is that to behave differently would hinder his access to information he may otherwise not have. What say you? — Benn H.

Hi Benn. I certainly think access plays a role in it, but speaking in broad terms (because this is an industry-wide issue, and not unique to any one person), the primary consideration for many professional political-media commentators and organizations is audience-share.

I think we can learn a lot from Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott’s “respect the audience” business philosophy. It basically comes down to telling viewers (in this case the Fox audience) what they want to hear… rather than the sometimes hard, fair-and-balanced truths they do not want to hear. Bernie has argued that Scott’s model is actually the opposite of respecting the audience, and he’s absolutely right. If you’re in the news business, respecting your audience means leveling with them, and at least trying to be fair (aka using single-standards) in your coverage.

Honesty, earnestness, and fairness — however — can drive viewers away. Suzanne Scott is well aware of this. In an internal email in the wake of the 2020 election (which later went public thanks to the Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit), she infamously complained about (and scolded) Fox hosts and reporters (including Neil Cavuto) who were, on-air, responsibly shooting down Trump’s unsubstantiated “stolen election” claims. Scott was upset because a lot of Fox viewers — who desperately wanted to believe that Trump could only lose if the election was stolen — were turning off Fox in large numbers, and switching over to Newsmax (who was playing faster and looser with the “stolen election” nonsense). She also complained that fact-checking was “bad for business” because “the audience is furious.” That point alone speaks volumes.

Though the 2020 election drama was perhaps an extreme example, her email offered the public a very revealing look at how the right-wing media operates in the era of Trump, including their fears, pressures, motivations, priorities, etc. Those business considerations, by the way, are why Fox News sidelined Bernie a few years earlier. The Fox audience was outraged by Bernie’s honest, fair criticisms of Trump, so the network pulled him off the air (for a year!) until his contract ran out.

But it’s not just Fox. It’s how a large majority of the political-media operates, to varying degrees. Chris Stirewalt (who was famously fired from Fox News for correctly calling the 2020 race for Joe Biden) spelled all of this out in his book, Broken News. These individuals and organizations know what their audience wants, and they know what will keep them coming back for more. So, to stay successful, they give their audience those things good and hard. They’re also keenly aware of how much (and what type of) intra-tribe criticism their audience will tolerate… and they’re careful to stay on the right (aka safe) side of that line.

This is a proven business model for sure (Scott is still Fox News’ CEO, even after the $787.5 million settlement with Dominion). Many people (both talented and untalented) have made a lot of money using it. What it requires, however, are lots of double-standards and a great deal hypocrisy (which, unfortunately, most political consumers don’t care about anymore).

So now James Clyburn has joined Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and other non-DSA Democrats in jumping on the “pack the Court” bandwagon, or at least being open to it, and at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if supporting Court packing, becomes a litmus test for Democrats running in 2028. (I don’t think Clyburn himself is running, but Buttigieg, Harris and Newsom all are, and his badge of approval obviously would give a big boost to a candidate).

I have also started to see some fringe right-wing pundits stating that Democrats are obviously going to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance, so Republicans should do it first.

I must even admit that I am starting to think the main problem with Court expansion is the obvious incentive for both sides to keep doing it until we wind up with 99 Justices on the Court. But I am starting to wonder, if say, a Constitutional Amendment was passed that fixes the number of Justices at 13, that might eventually make it less politicized because the confirmation of a single Justice would be much less likely to completely change the ideological make up of it.

So, do you expect to see Court packing actually happen in your lifetime? If so, do you think it will be started off by Democrats or Republicans? — Aylene W.

I would be surprised to see court-packing in my lifetime, Aylene, but it’s well within the realm of possibility. It would be perfectly legal, and can be enacted through the regular legislative process.

If it were to happen, I think it would most likely come from the Democratic Party, being that the Supreme Court currently has a conservative tilt, and likely will for the foreseeable future. Also, as you point out, Democratic leaders are the ones making most of the hay about it… though it may well just be a political/electoral ploy to excite the base. People may remember that Biden talked about court packing too, but nothing ever came of it while he was in office.

Personally, I’m against court packing. I think nine justices make sense, and see no reason, beyond political/partisan interests, to change it.

How hard did you laugh at the House passing a resolution officially condemning and denouncing socialism "in all its forms”? — Ben G.

Yeah, I took it about as seriously as O.J. Simpson’s vow to “catch the real killers.”

As I keep arguing, Ben: Between the DSA, and Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, both parties have been remarkably accepting of socialism.

Scott Bessent this week blamed Ukraine (not the Iran War) for high gas prices. Do you think he actually believes that? — Alex D.

No, I don’t. And even if one wanted to make a superficial argument that Ukraine targeting Russia’s energy assets, in defense of their country, is contributing to already high gas prices, the blame for that falls on Russia (the unprovoked invader of a sovereign country). Not Ukraine.

Bessent made that statement on Fox & Friends, which is apparently President Trump’s favorite show. In other words, Bessent was speaking to an audience of one. And because Ukraine is a favorite whipping boy of the president’s, he chose to throw them under the bus instead of telling the truth.

Sir John —recently country / western music star Jelly Roll hosted the Jimmy Kimmel show for the week. While there, he made some rather crude and nasty jokes about President Trump, which enraged much of Jelly Roll’s conservative Christian fan-base (some of whom called for boycotts, while others labeled him a “fake Christian and a hypocrite”).

At first, Jelly Roll was defiant and encouraged the boycott. However by the time his final night of guest hosting rolled around, he gave a much more humble defense about making jokes about presidents who should be “able to take” a few jokes, while he simultaneously reiterated his Christianity and emphasized that mercy should include Democrats and Republicans, emphasizing that everyone is entitled to mercy. Well…okay. Personally I’d never even heard of Jelly Roll until the conservative pundits brought up some clips of his infamous anti-Trump monologue, and I add that I agree philosophically with Jelly Roll’s points, and of course I can’t boycott somebody I never heard of.

What I do question is his sincerity on the final broadcast. If he truly was comfortable with angering his fan-base, then why did he give a semi-apologetic defense of himself on the final show? It never worked for the Dixie Chicks with conservatives, nor did it work for J.K. Rowling with the liberals (although Rowling was never apologetic about her views on the trans culture, she has emphasized that she still leans left politically.). I ask you—- is it brave for artists to crap on their fan base? Is it wise!? Is it cowardly & hypocritical for them to try and half-heartedly justify themselves afterwards? —“Jelly Roll Damage Control” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. Like you, I had never heard of Jelly Roll. I also don’t like Country music, don’t like Jimmy Kimmel (or his show), and am not motivated at all to get on YouTube and seek out the singer’s anti-Trump monologues (or his “humble defense” of those monologues). As I wrote a while back, I stopped caring about celebrities weighing in on politics a long time ago.

I’ll just make a few broad points, to hopefully satisfy your question:

• I think organized boycotts over stuff like this are pretty lame. If an individual doesn’t want to support an artist or entertainer, because they object to something that person said, fine. It’s a free country. No one’s forcing anyone to give such people their money. But taking on an activist role over it strikes me as a performative display of self-importance. These aren’t elected leaders, or public policy proposals. They’re entertainers.

• If someone wants to question someone else’s Christianity, based on that individual telling some “crude and nasty jokes,” they’re certainly free to do that. But if they go that route, it would be great if they used that same standard for other individuals, who at least claim to be a Christian, when they do the same type of thing. Otherwise, the objection isn’t to the conduct, but rather the specific individual displaying that conduct.

• It’s often (but not always) professionally unwise for an entertainer to publicly express his or her political views — especially if those views are sharp and divisive. It can run the risk of costing them money and opportunities. If someone goes that route, I suppose it could be considered “brave” (depending on the circumstance), and “less brave” if they later try and walk back their comments. But — like I said — I can’t bring myself to care about stuff like this anymore.

Til next week, Emperor.

Share

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

One of the frustrations of writing from a conservative perspective in the Trump era is having to sometimes remind yourself that the conservative positions you’ve long maintained — which were previously understood (and largely shared) by your fellow righties — have since been forgotten by a significant number of people who still think of themselves as conservatives. In some cases, they may have never truly explored those positions in the first place.

As I wrote in my last column, this really shouldn’t be surprising. Though the views I subscribe to broadly defined the mainstream conservative movement for close to 60 years, they’ve largely gone undefended over the last decade — at least by those with large public platforms. Few Republican leaders seem interested in them now, and the self-described conservatives who funnel outrage to millions every week (on cable news, popular podcasts, and social-media) are mostly focused on Trump sycophancy, culture-war battles, and otherwise owning the libs.

Gone are the days of Charles Krauthammer as a revered thought-leader on the American Right. Now, smug, know-nothing whataboutists like Jesse Watters rule the roost.

Philosophical foundations, including those that have led to sustained periods of great success and prosperity, can only last so long on muscle-memory. Without gatekeepers and others willing to debate and persuade potential converts on conservative ideas, people were bound to forget them, and fall for the allure of personality-based populism — the success of which is measured not by conservation, enduring success, or the betterment of society… but rather grievance, attitude, and tribal solidarity.

Case in point, our national debt recently flew past the $40 trillion mark. The United States is now spending more on interest payments (to service that debt) than on national defense. Our major entitlement programs are just a few years away from insolvency. Our cost of living is through the roof. Executive abuses and federal corruption have become normalized. And seemingly every week, we’re learning more about the poor planning and mismanagement behind the ongoing Iran War (along with the U.S. vulnerabilities it has exposed).

These are serious, substantive issues. And yet a big focus of our president and his loyal defenders, at least at the moment, is finding more ways to further demonize and screw up our relationship with Canada — one of our closest, safest, and most mutually beneficial allies.

No, I’m not talking about the dopey “Lake America” trolling (though the Right’s jubilation over that juvenile nonsense goes to my larger point). I’m referring to the latest round of Trump’s trade war. Despite the economic damage it has caused to our country, much of the effort being deemed illegal, and all of it amounting to an assault on the longtime conservative tenet of free trade, Trump’s appetite for punishing our allies (often at America’s expense) appears as strong as ever.

As we learned a few months ago from our president’s 2025 financial disclosure, Trump, unlike an overwhelming majority of Americans, has personally made a lot of money off his tariffs. But his mistreatment of our allies clearly runs much deeper than a warped view of international trade.

In a recent Q&A, a subscriber to this website asked if Trump’s latest abuse of Canada stemmed from his “failed excursion into Iran,” and the emotional need to “bully” someone who he could do so with “relative impunity.” While I think there may be something to that, the problem (as Ukraine, South Korea, Greenland, Denmark, and other countries can attest to) is much broader.

While Trump treats anti-America dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un with fawning praise and respect, he takes the opposite tact with many of America’s friends and free-world partners, casting them as leeches and ingrates who only take advantage of the United States’ outsized role in the world order.

I recently spoke about this to Bobby Miller, a commentator and foreign policy scholar from Georgetown University.

“President Trump… has a tendency to do this with a lot of our allies,” Miller told me during the interview. “And while this sort of bravado might sound appealing, superficially appealing — you know, ‘We’re the boss’ sort of machismo; ‘We’re telling our allies how to behave, and they better be supplicants of ours…’ I think the fundamental problem, something that President Trump misunderstands, is that one of the keys to American hegemony — one of the reasons why we have achieved so much... is that we don't treat allies like supplicants. We treat them as equals.”

This is one of those positions that I think most conservatives (and probably most Americans) not only used to understand, but also understood the purpose of. It’s more than a matter of honor (though honor is very important too).

Miller was kind enough to lay it out. “There’s something called mutually beneficial exchanges… There doesn’t need to be this adversarial relationship with our allies, where we’re extracting something. We both can benefit.” He also described how “allies allow us to project power into areas of the world where we aren’t always physically present.”

Miller says that the president’s needless disparagement and punishment of our allies has many of them questioning American resolve — a trend he believes started under Obama, and has only gotten worse under Trump. When allies start to view the U.S. as unreliable (or potentially even hostile), Miller argued, their strategic plan changes. They begin to hedge their bets, either by building more amicable relationships with bad actors on the world stage (including sworn enemies of the United States), or by seeking strategic independence.

That latter may sound good to some, ceded Miller, but he believes that view is short-sighted. He says that if U.S. allies go their own way, their strategic autonomy may well run contrary to U.S. interests.

“Having this vast alliance network,” he added, “has been of immense benefit to the United States… A lot of Americans have taken this world order for granted, and how beneficial the post-1945 arrangement has been for the United States.”

He’s right. And if the Trump era has proven anything, it’s that millions of Americans have taken all kinds of things for granted. Our next president, if he or she has any sense at all, will invest a lot of time in rebuilding our strategic alliances.

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: I am reading the interesting book, “Suicidal Empathy” by Gad Saad. Early in the book, Saad describes four key principles of an ethical journalist as described by The Society of Professional Journalists. Two of these are “Seek Truth and Report It”, and “Minimize Harm.” But what if the truth harms a particular group? Should you refrain from sharing it or obfuscate key features to “minimize harm”? No sooner did I read this than the story of black Cambridge University professor Jason Arday’s suicide made the news. Arday was under heavy scrutiny for rampant plagiarism, a very suspect back story, and other aspects of his life that did not pass basic fact checking. Cambridge University held a vigil for Arday, and the participants mostly blamed the British press for racistly noticing Arday’s suspect personal and academic record. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist, but you’re the professional writer. Where do you stand? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. Again, I apologize for not seeing this question last week, when you originally asked it.

I haven’t read “Suicidal Empathy,” but the “minimize harm” part you describe does strike me as odd, at least in the journalistic sense. I can think of many scenarios in which attempting to minimize the harm of a story could prevent the necessary truth from coming out.

As for Arday, it’s a tragic story for sure. I can think of certain instances of suicide, in which I do place some partial blame on others, but this isn’t one of them. Revealing that someone in a position of public trust is a fraud isn’t unethical. I’m sure there are better comparisons, but when journalist Brian Williams was exposed for his many false accounts, pretty much no one felt he should be shielded from hard criticism and professional accountability. Unfortunately, Arday handled the fallout much differently than Williams did.

Any thoughts on the passing of Dolly Parton and Tim Curry this week. — Alex D.

Only that both were pop-culture icons, and that Parton was widely beloved for her kindness, generosity, and charitable giving. Unlike lots of people, I never had any particular fan-affection for either of them. Their movies weren’t really my thing, and I was never into Country music, but my sympathy certainly goes out to their families and friends.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump’s trade war has resulted in the United States now paying 75% more for aluminum than the rest of the world. Why are we still doing this crap? The tariffs have done nothing but hurt our country. — Ben G.

We’re still doing this, Ben, because Trump thinks tariffs are super cool, and he loves treating our allies like dirt (even at the expense of our own country). We also know now that he personally makes a good amount of money through stock trades, as a result of his tariff announcements and other central-planning efforts. One more possible explanation, at least in regard to Canada, is covered in the next question…

Questions for the Friday Q&A:

1. Do you attribute Trump’s newly revised bullying of Canada and South Korea a return to “Trump’s Greatest Hits” after his failed excursion into Iran? In other words, like a classic bully, he backed down (while continuing to talk tough) when someone (Iran) stood up to him, and then returned to someone he could bully with relative impunity (Canada, and to a lesser degree, South Korea)? I’m expecting him to bring out the “we need to control Greenland” screed next week.

2. Do you and Bernie think the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating DSA candidates in competitive districts/states, thus making the GOP candidate come across as the more reasonable choice?

3. How concerned are you that Trump will try to thwart the results of the mid-terms if things don’t go his way, for example declaring a National Emergency, seizing voting machines, etc... ?

— John M.

Hi John. I’ll answer one question at a time…

Bullying our allies

You’re broadly right about Trump’s treatment of U.S. allies. He loves to publicly humiliate them, treat them like ingrates, and needlessly punish them economically and/or through the denial of previously pledged support. He thinks it makes him look tough and strong. In reality, it hurts our country (both economically and geopolitically), and compels good foreign actors to build or strengthen ties with bad foreign actors. I can’t emphasize how damaging this has been to the United States, while Trump flatters, fawns over, and makes unbelievable concessions to sworn enemies of America (like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un).

As for whether this latest round of bullying Canada, and now South Korea, stems from Trump trying to revitalize his “tough and strong” persona after ending up in an embarrassing stalemate with Iran, I think it’s entirely possible. Trump’s ego and self-interest dictates almost every decision he makes.

The Democrats snatching defeat from victory with DSA nominees

I assume, John, that you’re referring to 2028, since I don’t think any DSA candidates have been nominated in swing districts/states this year (unless you count Abdul El-Sayed, who isn’t technically a DSA candidate).

So, do I think that DSA candidates can lose winnable seats for Democrats in 2028? Yes, I do. I think we might also see some saner GOP candidates in 2028, with Trump on his way out (and less interested in purging non-conformists from the party). Then again, voters may be so sick of Trump and the GOP by November of 2028 that there could be an electoral bloodbath-victory for the Dems… no matter what.

Trump trying to thwart the midterms

I’m not terribly concerned about it, John, mainly because Trump’s name isn’t on the ballot. As I’ve argued a number of times, I don’t think Trump really cares about the GOP Congress, and whether Republicans hold a majority. In fact, I think he sort of likes the (false) narrative that other Republicans can’t win unless he’s on the ballot.

Trump has proven that he’s more than willing to try and overturn a U.S. election when he loses one. But I very much doubt he’d bother to put forth the effort for other Republicans. Then again, when I give Trump the benefit of the doubt on something, he often proves me wrong.

Sir John — apparently there is some backlash over “a secret meeting” between Hakim Jeffries and Jared Kushner. Any idea what this meeting was about? Are there some shenanigans going on politically? — “Behind Closed Door” regards from The Emperor

I think the most likely explanation, as suggested by the reporting, is that Trump knows the GOP will lose the House in the midterm elections, and his administration is trying to gauge what kind of relationship he may have with the Democratic Congress at that time.

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was interested in trying to work some backdoor deals with the Democrats — perhaps something along the lines of vowing to sign big bills they want passed in exchange for minimizing congressional investigations into him and his partners/allies.

People forget that when the Dems won back the House during Trump’s first term, Trump caved to their wishes multiple times, just to avoid a fight. (Like the Dems, Trump’s a big-government guy, and couldn’t care less about restraining spending). This time, he’d have even more motivation to give them what they want: self-preservation.

Editor’s Note: The below question from Bob H. was trimmed for length (though it’s still fairly long):

Last week Bill O’Reilly ranted against Sen. Ossoff for an off-color remark he made about a WH aide. O’Reilly called him a guttersnipe at least twice. He said Sen. Ossoff was a despicable human being. He looked into the camera and raged with obvious vitriol “Is this who you want representing you?,” presumably addressing Georgia voters. Not an exact quote, but close enough. O’Reilly then said he’d vote for Putin if he were running against Sen. Ossoff. Days later, when Chris Cuomo, called O’Reilly out for this, he said maybe he’d stay home if Putin ran against Sen. Ossoff. Really?

On his Monday show, O’Reilly again ranted against Ossoff, again calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person. O’Reilly said character matters. Over the last 10 days, O’Reilly must have devoted at least 30 minutes on his show, on Cuomo’s show, and on Leland Vitter’s show to angrily tear into Sen. Ossoff for supposedly being a guttersnipe and a despicable person.

When O’Reilly went on Chris Cuomo’s show, Cuomo rebuked O’Reilly for going bonkers against Sen. Ossoff but saying nothing about President Trump, who does the same thing on a regular basis. Cuomo’s point was that O’Reilly, who claims to be a fair-minded journalist who doesn’t play favorites while claiming that almost every other commentator is dishonest, O’Reilly was being hypocritical by spending so much time angrily tearing into Sen. Ossoff, calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person and putting him in league with Putin, but not doing anything near comparable with Trump.

Cuomo said that O’Reilly “says nothing” about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. Here, he was wrong. Actually, O’Reilly says VERY LITTLE about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. In one segment he said “Why bother with that” (almost an exact quote) implying that such talk obscures his message, in another segment he said if he wants to protect his legacy he must stop doing that, in another segment he said he must put stop to it or it’ll harm him. In other words, O’Reilly NEVER angrily lambastes Trump him for demeaning women for just doing their jobs. O’Reilly said this with NO vitriol as with Sen. Ossoff ‘s singular comment. Rather, O’Reilly was giving Pres. Trump advice to help him.

President Trump demeans women regularly for just doing their job. As two examples, he told a female reporter “Shut up Piggy,” and he repeatedly demeans reporter Kaitlyn Collins at press conferences and once at the WH Correspondence dinner. Did Mr. O’Reilly rant on and on against President Trump about this? Did he call President Trump a guttersnipe even once? Did O’Reilly tear into President Trump with vitriol for being a despicable person? Did he put him in a league with Putin?

O’Reilly emphasizes that Ossoff is a sitting U. S. Senator. But Trump is a sitting U. S. President!

In fact, on one occasion O’Reilly said that President Trump’s bombast doesn’t bother him, “maybe it should, but it doesn’t.” Almost an exact quote. On another occasion O’Reilly essentially told viewers that they should focus on his policies, NOT on the “crazy things” he says. O’Reilly has NEVER angrily torn into President Trump, not by ANY stretch.

In a later episode, O’Reilly tried to patch his hypocrisy by saying that he said these personal attacks “on both sides” must stop. But this is not what O’Reilly said. And he claims to be an honest broker? — Bob H.

Hi Bob. I think your analysis is largely (or even entirely) correct. In fact, earlier this week, I happened to see a heated News Nation debate on this very topic between Cuomo and O’Reilly. I’m not a fan of Cuomo (nor O’Reilly) but Cuomo correctly pointed out, as you just did, that O’Reilly is being an enormous hypocrite on Ossoff’s comments.

Like I said last week, what Ossoff said was cheap, needless, and absolutely worthy of criticism. He was clearly implying that Trump and Natalie Harp were having an affair. O’Reilly, as you described, went absolutely ballistic over it. But as you and Cuomo pointed out, O’Reilly never takes that same tact (or anything close to it) when Trump says or does far worse (which happens on a regular basis). Instead, on those occasions when O’Reilly decides to weigh in on Trump’s bad behavior, he very calmly argues that it’s not in Trump’s political interest to conduct himself in such a manner. No strong condemnation. No anger. No vitriol. Just polite advice from a chum and admirer.

O’Reilly has never held Trump to the standards he holds Democrats, media-liberals, and other Trump critics to (nowhere close), despite Trump being the leader of a major political-party and the president of the United States. The notion that he’s a fair arbiter when it comes to Trump is patently absurd.

Share

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

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, Just say Pres. Trump does not complete his term due to medical reasons and JD Vance is sworn in as president. Who do you see as Vance's choice of VP? I can envision this scenario truly happening next year. Trump's health is tanking. — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. If Trump is unable to finish this term, and JD Vance takes over as president, Vance would get to nominate his successor. However, that individual could only assume office after confirmation by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In other words, if Trump’s hypothetical early-departure comes after January of 2027, Vance’s nomination would need confirmation votes from Democrats, in addition to Republicans (since the Dems will hold the House and possibly even the Senate at that time).

For that reason, Vance couldn’t get away with nominating one of his half-baked postliberal buddies like Tucker Carlson or Kevin Roberts. He’d have to instead choose someone who could get enough Democratic votes, like Marco Rubio (who’s still widely respected in Congress), though I’m not sure Rubio would want the job. Regardless, because of the need for bipartisan support, Vance’s theoretical vice president would have to be of higher quality than Trump’s current one.

All this extreme far left Socialist nonsense makes great news. Eliminating prisons, abolishing ICE, eliminating the Senate, open borders, eliminating the Electoral College, etc. Does anybody rationally really think for one second that any of these policies would get legislated into actual law. It’s like “Medicare for All”. Estimates are that would cost 4 trillion dollars. Politicians will say anything, but nobody ever asks them hard questions on HOW they are going to do it. I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care. — Rob O.

You bring up a very good point, Rob. While I have little doubt that the DSA crowd would love to get all of the things you listed legislated into law, there are a number of obstacles standing in their way, including public opinion, the separation of powers, and divided government (which, by the way, is another reason why the Senate filibuster should be preserved).

My bigger concern is with a U.S. president abusing his or her executive power, sidestepping Congress, and making radical changes that cause lots of damage until the Supreme Court eventually has to step in to deal with the mess. We saw this with Biden’s student-loan forgiveness venture, and Trump’s sweeping tariffs (which our country is still feeling the pain from). I’m assuming the courts will also eventually have to deal with Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, which — as I keep pointing out — is far closer to textbook socialism than anything the DSA crowd has thus far been able to pull off.

I think your last sentence, Rob, is particularly important: “I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care.” I think that by and large, today’s voters care a lot less about policies and competence than they do grievance, attitude, culture-war stuff, and personalities… which is why so many of them are willing to vote for unfit loons who peddle terrible ideas.

Greetings Sir John—well it looks the residents of Seattle are circulating a recall petition for Mayor Katie Wilson. I seriously do wonder how many of them voted for her. I also wonder what the hell they expected when she didn’t hide what she is. I also wonder if they’ll be foolish enough to put somebody else in there similar after she’s gone. Your thoughts? Sing along with me. — “The dumbest mayor you’ll ever see is in Seattle… and the voters the bluest fools in Seattle… like a whiny spoiled child… acting dumb, fool… and wild…”. Perry Como Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story at all, Emperor, but I think that the last part of my response to Rob above probably applies to your point as well.

What are your thoughts on Ron DeSantis' political aspirations after Florida's election for Governor takes place? — Sharon H.

I have no idea what he plans on doing, Sharon, but few political analysts are bullish on him running for president again. He apparently did a lot of political damage to himself with Republican voters by challenging Trump last time… despite it not being much of a “challenge” (he could barely bring himself to criticize Trump until the eleventh hour of the primary, and then immediately fell in line behind him after dropping out).

My guess is that DeSantis will end up in a future Republican presidential administration, or possibly even the current administration before all is said and done (now that he’s re-prostrated himself for Trump). He’d honestly be an asset, because, like Rubio (and few others in this administration), he’s a smart, competent leader who takes his public responsibility seriously.

What’s your take on the whole Jon Ossoff blowup over his “Trump wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” comment? — Alex D.

Interesting you should ask this, Alex. The other day, I weighed in on this topic on Twitter/X, and the post went a little viral:

I received hundreds of responses to it. Some people blindly accused me of defending Trump, ignoring Trump’s bad behavior, and being a MAGA guy … which makes absolutely no sense if you actually read the entire tweet… or pretty much anything else I’ve written about Trump over the last eleven years. There are plenty of hypocrites out there when it comes to Trump’s conduct (I addressed them in my tweet), but I’m not one of them.

Many others (and several of the same people) insisted there was nothing cheap or needless about what Ossoff said. They claimed he was making a general statement about Trump and his inner circle of sycophants. I very much disagree with that take. Ossoff was clearly implying that Trump and his staffer, Natalie Harp, are having an affair.

Nick Catoggio of The Dispatch (who isn’t a Trump defender either) mirrored my thinking in a recent column:

…if Ossoff wanted to make a point about Trump being surrounded by sycophants, there are scores of names he might have dropped that are more prominent than [Harp’s]. We’ve all watched those Cabinet meetings where the president goes around the table to receive North Korean-style fealty from the likes of Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth. Why not mention them instead?

The senator knew what he was doing. (He’s reportedly quite mindful about the online “virality” of his speeches.) Harp is young, blond, pretty, and constantly by the president’s side. And Trump is a known philanderer with a well-earned reputation for lechery. Ossoff didn’t explicitly accuse the two of having an affair, but he didn’t need to, as his audience’s boisterous reaction to her name proved. The insinuation was clear enough.

…

Ossoff’s jab was sexist, implying that Harp’s boss keeps her around for extracurricular reasons rather than for her impressive talent at curating the paranoid disinformation he consumes. To accuse a woman of sleeping with her superior is to invite the world not to take her seriously, which is unfair when there are so many better reasons not to take Natalie Harp seriously. The fact is that there’s no evidence of a sexual relationship between her and Trump.

…you should frown upon a U.S. senator from the Party of Norms doing his part to normalize a stereotype about attractive young female aides who work in politics. Ossoff might limit his own insinuations to Harp, but not everyone who watched the clip of him speaking will. Some will find moral license in his bad example to demean other professional women toward whom they bear a grudge.

In a recent GOP Senate primary debate, Darline Graham (Lindsey’s sister) admitted that she doesn’t really know anything about foreign policy. Shouldn’t that be a basic requirement for running for the U.S. Senate? — Ben G.

Yes, it should. I had no real problem with Darline Graham being appointed to finish out her late brother’s term, but her actually running for a full 6-year term (with Trump’s support) is ludicrous. She has neither a clue nor interest in what the job entails. As conservative commentator Brad Polumbo argued, this is the “emotional equivalent of a DEI pick for Republicans”.

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitulation to North Korea

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

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

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

But sadly, few on the Right seem to care.

Most Republicans now favor government price controls

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

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

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

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

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

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

And few on the Right seem to care.

A closer look at Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom

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

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

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

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

And yet… few on today’s Right care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we owe our nation and future generations that.

Share

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Emperor.

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

Then… things got strange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Reagan Caucus Action

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

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s icky. It’s disrespectful.

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

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

Share

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.