Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for paying subscribers. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me.
A quick reminder first
When submitting questions for the weekly Q&As, please limit your questions to just a few sentences (three or four tops). We’ve received complaints from subscribers about the length of these sessions. People don’t mind long answers so much, but they don’t like having to read through long-winded, often commentary-filled questions to get to those answers. Thank you, and we appreciate your help and understanding.
Let’s get started:
John and Bernie - Given that JD Vance seemed somewhat "normal" during the debate, do you think he's the GOP front runner for 2028 even if Trump loses in November? — Andy
From John: Hi Andy. If Trump loses, I don’t think Vance will be the front-runner in 2028. MAGA doesn’t have a lot of affection for him in the first place (I think most view him as a phony, but tolerate him because of Trump). I think Vance could even end up as one of multiple scapegoats for a Trump loss. And unless that loss eventually compelled Republicans to liberate themselves from the personality cult (which I’m not counting on), I suspect the 2028 front-runner would be — wait for it — Trump himself… or possibly one of his sons. Vance would have a much better chance if Trump wins, but I think he’s just as expendable to Trump as Mike Pence was. If he ever gets on Trump’s bad side for any reason, Trump would happily throw him under the bus (like he did with Pence and so many others), and Vance’s political career would be left in ruin. In which case, again, I think one of Trump’s sons would be the most likely 2028 front-runner.
From Bernie: I don’t think there’ll be an obvious front runner for a while. There’s Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Sununu — to name just three. You can add Vance to the list along with a few others. This is from Bret Stephens in the NYT: “… even if Trump doesn’t win next month, Vance’s success in the debate sets him up as the leading G.O.P. contender in 2028.” Stephens is a smart guy. But so is Daly. Take your pick.
Bernie, we all know who Trump is as a person, and his policies. Voters either recognize we were better off when he was President, or they don’t. We don’t know any specifics about Harris’s policies, and she won’t take questions to defend them. Fair statement? — Rob O.
Pretty much, Rob. But while we don’t know much about who the real Kamala Harris is, we know only so much about Trump. Yes, we know what he did in office. But not sure what’s next. I’m not in the camp that says he’s going to destroy the country. I don’t believe that. But he’s so irrational, I just don’t feel comfortable trying to predict the future.
Bob Woodward says in his new book that Trump has had as many as 7 calls with Vladmir Putin since leaving office. J.D. Vance weighed in on the development saying, “Even if it's true, is there something wrong with speaking to world leaders? No. Is there anything wrong with engaging in diplomacy?” It seems to me that there IS a problem - I think even legally - with a non officeholder “engaging in diplomacy” with a world leader. What do you think of this story? — Alex D.
Depends on how we’re defining “diplomacy.” A non-officeholder can’t negotiate deals with foreign leaders. But he can chat about the things going on in the world. If it’s that kind of talk, it’s legal and I don’t think would literally be diplomatic in nature.
Mr. G., What if any accountability can we expect to see from CBS/60 Minutes for their obvious editing of and talking over Harris’s original answers to make her sound more intelligent and competent during this interview? How can they be that stupid to release the true answer in advance, then air the edited answer? Any idea how their ratings have trended say the past 10 years? —ScottyG
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Bernard Goldberg's Commentary to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.