The Daly Weekly (6/12)

Graham Platner, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and more.

Hi everyone.

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

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

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

Now, let’s get to your questions…

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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