The Daly Weekly (6/27)

Zohran Mamdani, Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, and more.

Hi everyone.

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

Let’s get right to it…

---

As you said on your podcast, multiple reports indicate that Trump’s decision to bomb Iran came as a result of him watching all the praise Benjamin Netanyahu was receiving on Fox News for Israel’s successful attacks, getting jealous, and wanting to upstage Netanyahu. Do you buy that? — Ben G.

There may more to it than that, Ben, but as you said, reports (across the political/ideological media-spectrum) point to that indeed being a deciding factor. Being that it’s pretty consistent with what we know of Trump, I guess I don’t have much trouble believing it. As I wrote earlier this week, I’m glad Trump bombed Iran, but I suppose I should also be glad that born-again anti-interventionist Tucker Carlson is no longer on Fox. Him having Trump’s attention five nights a week was never a good thing.

What do you think about “Democratic Socialist” Zohran Mamdani becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for New York mayor? — Alex D.

I think it will be a disaster for the Democratic party and New York City. The guy is a nutty “defund the police” anti-capitalist who wants city-run grocery stores, among other things. If he goes all the way, which is likely, I think he’ll cause a lot of chaos and be made a progressive poster-child by Republicans and the right-wing media. And New Yorkers will have only themselves to blame for all of it.

Lately with this whirlwind of MAGA on MAGA attacks, I’m seeing a split in the MAGA movement itself. Those who rightfully supported the president’s decision in sending nukes to Iran, and those who oppose it. I saw some who I had lost faith in like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro epically take down Tucker Carlson which pleased me, even Trump. But then it ultimately turned into a who supports Trump more pissing contest.

Is it possible that this situation like with Rand Paul breaking ranks is enough to possibly split MAGA, sending the Tuckers, Bannons and Gabbards to some Bernie Sanders movement and traditionalists to take back over, possibly pull Trump in that direction? Or will Trump always side with the highest political bidder? — Ed G.

Hi Ed. You did a very good job of describing the MAGA divide over foreign intervention. I’m glad people like Levin and Shapiro took the fight to Tucker, even though, as you said, they embarrassingly insulated their attacks with slobbering Trump-adoration. As I commented the other day, I have much more respect for those on the right who called out Tucker’s B.S. when it was professionally risky, like Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes.

That said, I don’t think the “MAGA split” will come until after Trump is gone from office. We’ve already seen many of the “anti-interventionists” fold like cheap suits following Trump’s bombing of Iran. That’s because what MAGA ultimately comes down to is loyalty and fealty to Trump — not consistent principles, policy positions, or ideology. For now, at least on foreign policy, Trump is on the side of Republican traditionalists (who many of supporters have been calling “neocons” and “warmongers” for the better part of a decade). To me, that’s a good thing. I’d like to see Trump turn around and embrace other traditionally Republican positions as well (like limited government, free trade, and defense of the Constitution), but I’m not holding my breath on that.

Sir John: apparently the LAPD posted a statement on X giving sympathy to the Iranian victims of the recent bombings from Israel and the U.S., but it was eventually removed. Here’s a brief video on this. SERIOUSLY!? Since when do police departments take it upon themselves to comment on international affairs !? Granted, it’s the LAPD but still. Your thoughts and opinions on how and why this occurred are welcome. —“WTAF LAPD” regards from The Emperor

Best case scenario, Emperor, the LAPD’s social-media person went rogue (that kind of thing happens more often than people think). My guess, however, is that it came from a little higher up, but likely not from the top. Either way, it was dumb, and it was deleted and apologized for.

Broadly speaking, social-media has a way of turning otherwise serious people into cyber-bozos and lunatics. For lots of people, their online presence almost becomes a second personality, where they feel emboldened to say impulsive, often wacky things that they would never say out loud in a room full of people. This is true of all types of individuals, from anonymous trolls with a dozen followers, to high-ranking government officials. I don’t think it’s healthy at all.

John: My question to you this week is a very personal one. My father died Thursday. He was 89 and lived a good, long, full life. Dad was an attorney, a lifelong conservative and philosophy major at SMU. Probably his favorite philosophical quote is from Heraclitus: “A man cannot step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river, and he is not the same man.” I know you recently lost your father as well. Do you care to share some wisdom or advice passed down from your father? — Steve R.

First of all, Steve, my deepest condolences on the loss of your father. May his memory be an eternal blessing. As you stated, my father passed away, also at the age of 89, back in February.

To answer your question, my father wasn’t really one to pass along a whole lot of advice or wisdom — at least not rhetorically. I learned more from how he chose to live his life. He was a very kind, patient, hard-working man. I highlighted these traits in his obituary, but you asking this question, Steve, actually gives me an opportunity to share some other written thoughts I didn’t get a chance to say aloud when my father was laid to rest at Fort Logan National Cemetery earlier this month (he was a U.S. Navy veteran). Those familiar with such burials know that the funeral services our federal government provides are scheduled every 30 minutes, with the length of each service being a tight 20 minutes. About 15 minutes of that time is dedicated to military honors including a color guard, a bugler playing “Taps,” and a 21-gun salute). And if there’s a spiritual guide conducting the committal service, their readings can easily fill up the rest of the time. I wrote a very short speech for the service (as did my brother), in the event there would be a spare minute for it, but that didn’t happen.

So, since I think this kind of falls in line with your question, Steve, here it is:

One of the earliest memories I have of my father was him, when I was very little, holding me way up in the air above his head with one hand — all the way to the ceiling. It’s the sort of thing a lot of fathers do (the old Superman treatment).

But being that it’s a very early memory that I still have today with surprising clarity, I can’t help but find some additional meaning to it…

As best I can tell, not just from my own experiences, but also those shared by his siblings and cousins — my father always put others above himself.

Their needs. Their wants. Their happiness and contentment. “Theirs” always came before “his”… unless, of course, there was Bronco game on. But in every other instance, my father prioritized the lives of those he loved high above is own.

Some might say it was to a fault, but I don’t look at it that way. It’s who he was. He was loyal. He was selfless. He wanted others to be happy, and get what they wanted in life. And I admire him deeply for that.

I wouldn’t call him particularly religious, but his morality and grace were stronger than that of many who are.

Thank you, Dad, for being the man that you were, and the man that you still are in the hearts of those fortunate enough to have known you.

---

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