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