The Daly Weekly (9/12)

The Charlie Kirk assassination, Scott Bessent, Tim Kaine, 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…

---

Hi John, what do make of the Charlie Kirk assassination and the comments of President Donald Trump who has pointed the finger at the rhetoric coming from the "radical left" as the cause (without any evidence), and the bizarre comment of Pete Hegseth, "Well done, good and faithful servant." after the event? America has a long history of political assassinations, will this be the norm over the next few years in a deeply fractured and polarized society? — FDM

Let me start by saying that as of the time I’m writing this, no one has been identified or apprehended for Kirk’s murder (though some pictures might be helping authorities get close). It’s possible that will change by the time this scheduled Q&A goes live.

My deepest sympathies go out to Kirk’s family and friends. He was a husband and father of young children, and his assassination with as an act of evil and a dark day for our nation. There should be no room in our country for political violence. Those who dismiss it, make jokes about it, or celebrate it when the victim is on the “other side” are frankly part of the problem. I also reject this “us verses them” mentality, and the use of the word “they” (as in “they shot him”) to assign blame for the violent actions of an individual to an entire political opposition. People that do that are being irresponsible.

We don’t know the killer’s motivations yet. It may well be that he’s some radical left-winger who hates conservatives or Christians. It also may be that he’s similar to the guy who shot Donald Trump — a mentally-ill misfit who didn’t have firm political leanings (he was actually a Republican, and had been researching the movements of other high-profile targets including Joe Biden). Many on the Right unfairly cast that individual as a product of the Left, similar to how many on the Left unfairly cast Paul Pelosi’s captor/assailant as a product of the Right. It’s always best to wait until the perp is captured and identified, before lumping them in with a political faction.

I’m not sure what to make of Hegseth’s remark. As for Trump’s words, an acquaintance of mine pretty well summed up my position: “You can always count on President Trump to fail to meet the moment. Instead of trying to bring people together and de-escalate all the recent political violence, he decides to throw partisan cheap shots.” The good news is that Trump, the next day, said people should respond with nonviolence.

To your last question, I do worry that we’ve entered a new era of political violence, similar to the late 1960s and early 70s. I’d recommend reading former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone’s powerful piece on the increased social acceptance (which he knows about firsthand) that seems to be emboldening it.

I realize this is a very sensitive question, and you don’t have to answer it if you don’t want, but I’m seeing a lot of people of Republicans/conservatives (who I’m convinced know better) almost elevating Charlie Kirk to sainthood now that he’s dead. I think one can honor his memory and say good things about him in death, without rewriting who he was: a guy who often argued in bad faith, often said incendiary things for attention, spread a lot of reckless (and debunked) conspiracy theories, flipped a lot of his views for audience-share, and accused others of vile behavior that he himself was either guilty of or endorsed. What are your thoughts on this? — Alex D.

That is indeed a sensitive question, Alex. Thanks a lot, you jerk! (Just kidding). I have indeed seen what you’re talking about. I think Kirk certainly had some commendable qualities. He seemed like a devoted husband and father, and he absolutely did make an effort (as many have pointed out) to have civil discourse with political opponents. I didn’t know Kirk personally, so I can’t say a lot about him outside of his public persona. But as conservative writer Matt Labash put it in his piece on the matter, my inclination has never been to “heap false praise on the dead.”

It makes sense to want to portray a recently deceased individual in the best possible light, but as you eluded to, I also think one can honor a murder-victim’s memory, condemn his killer, condemn those celebrating his death, and demand justice for him and his family without over-the-top rewrites. From my perspective, Kirk was, in many ways, just as you described him. Labash touched on the memorable example of Kirk calling for a “patriot” to post bail for the man who nearly murdered Paul Pelosi with a hammer. Kirk unfortunately did that sort of thing more often than a lot of people realize, and it didn’t leave me with a good impression of him.

That said, I’ll repeat that no one should be a victim of political violence in this country. Every such crime should be forcefully condemned and punished. I hope they find Kirk’s killer soon.

John, what do you see as the over/under timeline on when a meaning number of GOP politicians will be fed up with Trump. And you should have asked Bernie if he would like us to stay off his lawn! — Scott K.

From what I understand, Scott, Bernie’s lawn is comprised of a large bed of broken glass… so no one will dare step foot on it in the first place. 😄

As for your question: It will never happen. Virtually every Republican leader who’s said anything meaningfully critical of Donald Trump has been purged from public office. Some were defeated in party-primaries, and others were pressured into not running again, but I can probably count on one hand those who’ve survived (and those individuals have either stopped criticizing him, or announced their retirement). What’s interesting is that Trump does permit Republican leaders to criticize members of his cabinet, with little (if any) push-back. We’ve been seeing that lately with Rand Paul slamming J.D. Vance, and other Republican Senators putting RFK Jr. in the hot-seat. Trump seems okay with that, as long as the critic in question continues to lavish praise on him.

There are now three documented instances of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatening to physically punch another Trump cabinet member in the face. Will the fourth time be the charm? — Ben G.

Lol. Good question, Ben. Maybe Bessent will headline that announced MMA event at the White House.

John: I genuinely like to stay out of the morass of the culture wars and taking fake offense at every utterance of the opposition, but Tim Kaine’s comments last week give me pause. To quote the senator from Virginia, the home of Thomas Jefferson, “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.” I’m troubled because having rights endowed by our Creator is one of the core principles of America and is clearly articulated in our founding documents. To my knowledge, Senator Kaine has not clarified or walked these comments back. Nine years ago, he came within a whisker of being our vice president. Are you as bothered by this as I am? — Steve R.

I’m probably not as bothered by it as you, Steve, but I do find it interesting (and disheartening) that someone with Kaine’s resume can apparently have such little understanding of how our country was founded. It’s really quite embarrassing, or at least it should be.

What I appreciate is that I know, from our past conversations, Steve, that you’re being sincere when you say you’re bothered by this. I very much question the sincerity of others criticizing Kaine, who’ve reflexively blown off their own side’s assaults on our nation’s constitutional order and founding (including assaults that have gone well beyond rhetoric).

John, Which is most prevalent at present? The Herd Syndrome or TDS? I've been accused of TDS AND Hegseth syndrome purely for my silly comment over Hegseth’s 'War Dept.' title and how so original this guy tries to be. My suggestion to them was let's name it the ' Stomp your Ass Dept.' as it has a nicer ring to it. The MAGA commenters weren't amused, to say the least. — Sharon H.

Let me start with some level-setting, Sharon, on how I view Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Years ago, the late, great Charles Krauthammer coined “Bush Derangement Syndrome”:

The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.

I replace Bush in that sentence with Trump to define Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Are there people suffering from that form of TDS? Absolutely! But that’s very different from how Trump loyalists define TDS. They tend to assign it to virtually any criticism of Trump — even principled criticism that is intellectually and/or ideologically consistent with the critic’s broader views. To the MAGA crowd, any at least meaningful critique of Trump is inherently deranged. Thus, Sharon, the response you received doesn’t surprise me.

I’ve seen the inverse condition referred to as Trump Devotion Syndrome (also TDS), which I would define this way:

Reflexively taking personal offense to any and all criticisms directed toward Donald J. Trump.

Many suffer from that condition as well.

Sir John: apparently a bunch of Epstein survivors have come forward and saying that they’re going to put their own list together. I’m all for full transparency, but I’m also a believer in the notion that they could lie as well. Whatever men abused these girls should go to prison who are guilty. But how do we prove the women are telling the truth about the names on their own Epstein list? What do you think about this plan to begin with? — “Naughty List” regards from The Emperor

Well, it’s obviously true that people, in general, are capable of lying. But I have no way of knowing if any of these survivors intend to lie, or if they would even have a reason to. As for what I think of their plan, I guess I don’t really care. If they execute it, I would certainly hope it’s accurate.

Most of your commenters cut down Trump. Would they rather have Biden back or Kamala Harris back? — Conrad P.

I understand that this is a crazy concept to you, Conrad, and apparently no amount of explaining it (which I’ve tried to do many times) helps. But… I’ll try once more…

Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He works for us, the American people. When Americans believe their president is doing a poor job for them or the country (whether it’s on policy, leadership, or some other form of representation), it’s entirely appropriate for them to criticize him. It’s not blasphemy. Trump’s an elected leader — a politician, not God. When it comes to Trump’s job performance, it doesn’t matter who our previous president was, or who his opponent was in the last election. He’s president right now. And unless you believe it is the patriotic duty of Americans to support whatever a U.S. president does, and withhold criticism from him (which I know isn’t the case, being that I read your thoughts on Biden when he was president), your complaint is coming from a position of partisanship, not reason.

It’s worth asking yourself, Conrad, why you never heard people defending George W. Bush’s presidency with “Would you rather have Gore?”, or Barack Obama’s with “Would you rather have McCain? Would you rather have Romney?” Heck, I’m not even sure I heard people defending Biden’s presidency with “Would you rather have Trump back?” (though some may have.) It’s because past competitors are irrelevant to how a sitting president does his or her job.

---

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