The Daly Weekly (10/24)

"No Kings," Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and more.

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to it…

---

Greetings Sir John: I used to see videos of people, mostly on college campuses, but elsewhere as well, carrying signs that say to “Free Palestine” and “Stop the Genocide In Gaza” but I don’t see them now. Where did they all go and why aren’t they celebrating? Do ya think that they are currently printing up signs to protest the genocide against Nigerian Christians from Islamic jihadists? — “All We Are Saying…Is Give Our Hypocrisy A Chance” Regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. You’re not seeing those signs, nor are you seeing any of these people now protesting how Hamas is torturing and executing Palestinians in the streets of Gaza, because most of those protesters couldn’t care less about suffering and deaths in Gaza. They were instead either anti-Israel, antisemitic, or hadn’t a clue what the conflict was even about (and just joined in with what their friends were doing).

John, what is the real deal on Stephen Miller? Or is it just a personality glitch that has gone wild. He says some provocative piercing comments and some of his family members are disowning him; heartbroken over his behavior. — Sharon H.

I can’t say with certainty what makes Stephen Miller tick, Sharon, but I think he’s a bad guy who’s bad for our politics. He’s pro-authoritarian, disinterested in the rule of law (including First Amendment protections), and chronically dishonest. He’s also a bomb-thrower (metaphorically) who coarsens our public rhetoric beyond reason at practically every opportunity — including funerals. It’s hard to imagine disowning a family member, but I can totally understand why his family is heartbroken over the man he has become. Unfortunately, politics and political power corrupts a lot of souls on both sides of the aisle.

My thoughts on the No Kings Day protests and the use of executive power are a little layered. Biden and leftist officials thought nothing of limiting the presence and movement of American citizens during COVID or of thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court when it came to student loan forgiveness. They also didn’t like the Dobbs decision that sent the issue of abortion back to the states. Similarly, Trump thinks nothing of deploying federal troops into the streets of American cities he doesn’t like or of raising taxes (tariffs) when and where he pleases. I would summarize by saying I think most Americans are either for or against the use of executive power depending on if they are for or against the executive IN power. There is no moral consistency. What do you make of the No Kings Day protests? — Steve R.

My thoughts on this topic are layered as well, Steve.

I largely don’t care about the “No Kings” stuff. As I wrote in my column this week, I view it as “more of a hodgepodge of gripes (some legitimate, some unserious, and some pretty messed up) than a cohesive message of dissent.” And as was the case with the Tea Party protests many years ago, the other side latched onto the worst actors that showed up at various locations, and presented them as representative of the whole thing.

You’re right that the Biden administration (along with the Trump administration before them) advocated for Covid restrictions — some of which weren’t keeping up with the science. I think there’s a much stronger case against select school districts that held onto expired Covid narratives long after the federal government, and most state governments, did. Biden’s student-loan efforts were abominable, and were absolutely an executive abuse of power (that he got a lot of blow-back for). You’re also right that many on the left opposed the Dobbs decision, though talk of packing the court afterwards never materialized.

I agree with you on Trump, and added many more examples in my aforementioned column. I don’t think even a lot of people in the “No Kings” crowd realize the extent of the abuses.

As for your broader observation, I think you’re largely right. Both sides give their own tribe all kinds of leniency when it comes to abusing power, but cry foul when the abuses are on the other side. I will add, however, that while the Left has long played fast and loose with executive power, it’s almost wholesale acceptance on the Right is something relatively new. If I would have told a bunch of my fellow righties even just 10 years that they would one day be totally fine with even a small fraction of the abuses they now have no problem with, they would have felt deeply offended (or thought I was insane).

Matt Walsh was mentioned [last] week, and it brought to my mind a question for John and Bernie about the entire genre of self-published opinion-news(?) sites without oversight editors ensuring a minimal level of legitimate sourcing and fact checking. How do folks like yourselves, trying to not be red meat mongers, stay true to your responsibilities and original intentions? Ever think about throwing in the towel? I would love to hear you two discuss this in your podcast! — Scott K.

I’m going to try and bring this up with Bernie in the future, Scott, but here’s my personal take:

As I’ve said in the past, I wholeheartedly believe that if Bernie (with his Fox News background) had at some point gone full-MAGA (or even mostly MAGA), this website would have many times the subscribers it currently has, and would be raking in all kinds of money. But because we’ve maintained our principles, and because he and I think it’s morally and ethically important to be honest with our readers and listeners (that’s what drives us), we have a modest following here. And we’re thankful for each and every one of you.

As for your “throwing in the towel” question, my own answer is no. Despite all of my frustration with today’s politics, and the ever-present sense that a lot of people just aren’t interested in reasonable, intellectually and ideologically consistent political-viewpoints, I almost view it as a personal obligation to not only publicly weigh in on things that I feel are important, but also platform more influential voices than mine who are trying to do the same. In addition to my work here, I occasionally write for other political-media publications, I have good relationships with a number of notable individuals who are trying to make a positive difference, and I co-host the weekly Reagan Caucus Podcast with Thomas D. Howes (which we’ve brought on some great guests for). So, I don’t plan on closing this chapter of my life anytime soon.

Thoughts on the huge ballroom Trump is having added to the White House? — Ben G.

I don’t really care. Other presidents have made White House renovations over the years, so it shouldn’t, on its face, be all that controversial. I do wonder, however, if the Democrats will gain any political traction using the imagery of machines tearing down the old structure. There’s some symbolism there, similar to the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner behind George W. Bush (which likewise had an innocent explanation), that may be taken advantage of.

I saw this week that Tucker Carlson absolutely went off on some kid at a TPUSA event for saying Tucker’s net worth was around $50 million. It was a much different type of response than the high pitched cackle we’re used to. What do you think that was about? — Alex D.

Hi Alex. First of all, Tucker is very likely worth a lot more than $50 million. The guy was drawing a $20 million annual salary at Fox for probably a decade, he’s earned big book royalties, he’s received a ton of money from his frozen-food inheritance, and he assuredly brings in several million a year with his podcast. And that’s before you even get to the money he’s allegedly taking in from foreign entities. But Tucker, as you said, went off the rails when someone pointed out that he is extraordinarily wealthy. And the reason for that is that a big part of Tucker’s media-brand is him pretending to be a commoner fighting for the little guy against the rich and powerful elite (that he, in reality, is part of).

John, there are so many challenges politically for the US, it’s just difficult to imagine who or what can get us back to “old school” common sense politics. Guess what … I do have THE answer … TERM LIMITS! Everyone gets six years - Reps, Senators, and the President. Then, they will VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE - not worrying about running for reelection. After six, then out, with a nice little pension. No longer will the Representatives in the House spend all their waking hours groveling for money - running for office every TWO years? Really? That system is broken. So, going forward, whenever someone speaks about one of our elected officials not standing up for what most thinking people consider “American Values” - do what your elected officials won’t do, yell “WE NEED TERM LIMITS”! Bingo! John, I haven’t heard a peep from either side (of course), so let’s fill in the blanks, shall we? — Aloha, Mike

Hi Mike. You’ve brought this point up to me a few times now. I think you have a solid argument, but my view is still roughly the same as last time:

I struggle with the idea of term limits… I understand the sense behind them, and I’m open to the idea, but when I look at the current makeup of Congress, I see bigger problems than representatives being around too long. Frankly, I would take a serious, effective legislator who’s been in office for 20 years any day of the week over a fresh face who spends all their time trying to get on cable news, and pursue a dream of becoming a celebrity-firebrand.

---

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