The Daly Weekly (9/4)

Packing the Supreme Court, Scott Bessent, Jelly Roll, 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…

---

I have been and still am a fan of Bill O'Reilly but I agree he goes easier on President Trump than on others who display behavior similar to that of our president. My opinion is that to behave differently would hinder his access to information he may otherwise not have. What say you? — Benn H.

Hi Benn. I certainly think access plays a role in it, but speaking in broad terms (because this is an industry-wide issue, and not unique to any one person), the primary consideration for many professional political-media commentators and organizations is audience-share.

I think we can learn a lot from Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott’s “respect the audience” business philosophy. It basically comes down to telling viewers (in this case the Fox audience) what they want to hear… rather than the sometimes hard, fair-and-balanced truths they do not want to hear. Bernie has argued that Scott’s model is actually the opposite of respecting the audience, and he’s absolutely right. If you’re in the news business, respecting your audience means leveling with them, and at least trying to be fair (aka using single-standards) in your coverage.

Honesty, earnestness, and fairness — however — can drive viewers away. Suzanne Scott is well aware of this. In an internal email in the wake of the 2020 election (which later went public thanks to the Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit), she infamously complained about (and scolded) Fox hosts and reporters (including Neil Cavuto) who were, on-air, responsibly shooting down Trump’s unsubstantiated “stolen election” claims. Scott was upset because a lot of Fox viewers — who desperately wanted to believe that Trump could only lose if the election was stolen — were turning off Fox in large numbers, and switching over to Newsmax (who was playing faster and looser with the “stolen election” nonsense). She also complained that fact-checking was “bad for business” because “the audience is furious.” That point alone speaks volumes.

Though the 2020 election drama was perhaps an extreme example, her email offered the public a very revealing look at how the right-wing media operates in the era of Trump, including their fears, pressures, motivations, priorities, etc. Those business considerations, by the way, are why Fox News sidelined Bernie a few years earlier. The Fox audience was outraged by Bernie’s honest, fair criticisms of Trump, so the network pulled him off the air (for a year!) until his contract ran out.

But it’s not just Fox. It’s how a large majority of the political-media operates, to varying degrees. Chris Stirewalt (who was famously fired from Fox News for correctly calling the 2020 race for Joe Biden) spelled all of this out in his book, Broken News. These individuals and organizations know what their audience wants, and they know what will keep them coming back for more. So, to stay successful, they give their audience those things good and hard. They’re also keenly aware of how much (and what type of) intra-tribe criticism their audience will tolerate… and they’re careful to stay on the right (aka safe) side of that line.

This is a proven business model for sure (Scott is still Fox News’ CEO, even after the $787.5 million settlement with Dominion). Many people (both talented and untalented) have made a lot of money using it. What it requires, however, are lots of double-standards and a great deal hypocrisy (which, unfortunately, most political consumers don’t care about anymore).

So now James Clyburn has joined Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and other non-DSA Democrats in jumping on the “pack the Court” bandwagon, or at least being open to it, and at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if supporting Court packing, becomes a litmus test for Democrats running in 2028. (I don’t think Clyburn himself is running, but Buttigieg, Harris and Newsom all are, and his badge of approval obviously would give a big boost to a candidate).

I have also started to see some fringe right-wing pundits stating that Democrats are obviously going to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance, so Republicans should do it first.

I must even admit that I am starting to think the main problem with Court expansion is the obvious incentive for both sides to keep doing it until we wind up with 99 Justices on the Court. But I am starting to wonder, if say, a Constitutional Amendment was passed that fixes the number of Justices at 13, that might eventually make it less politicized because the confirmation of a single Justice would be much less likely to completely change the ideological make up of it.

So, do you expect to see Court packing actually happen in your lifetime? If so, do you think it will be started off by Democrats or Republicans? — Aylene W.

I would be surprised to see court-packing in my lifetime, Aylene, but it’s well within the realm of possibility. It would be perfectly legal, and can be enacted through the regular legislative process.

If it were to happen, I think it would most likely come from the Democratic Party, being that the Supreme Court currently has a conservative tilt, and likely will for the foreseeable future. Also, as you point out, Democratic leaders are the ones making most of the hay about it… though it may well just be a political/electoral ploy to excite the base. People may remember that Biden talked about court packing too, but nothing ever came of it while he was in office.

Personally, I’m against court packing. I think nine justices make sense, and see no reason, beyond political/partisan interests, to change it.

How hard did you laugh at the House passing a resolution officially condemning and denouncing socialism "in all its forms”? — Ben G.

Yeah, I took it about as seriously as O.J. Simpson’s vow to “catch the real killers.”

As I keep arguing, Ben: Between the DSA, and Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, both parties have been remarkably accepting of socialism.

Scott Bessent this week blamed Ukraine (not the Iran War) for high gas prices. Do you think he actually believes that? — Alex D.

No, I don’t. And even if one wanted to make a superficial argument that Ukraine targeting Russia’s energy assets, in defense of their country, is contributing to already high gas prices, the blame for that falls on Russia (the unprovoked invader of a sovereign country). Not Ukraine.

Bessent made that statement on Fox & Friends, which is apparently President Trump’s favorite show. In other words, Bessent was speaking to an audience of one. And because Ukraine is a favorite whipping boy of the president’s, he chose to throw them under the bus instead of telling the truth.

Sir John —recently country / western music star Jelly Roll hosted the Jimmy Kimmel show for the week. While there, he made some rather crude and nasty jokes about President Trump, which enraged much of Jelly Roll’s conservative Christian fan-base (some of whom called for boycotts, while others labeled him a “fake Christian and a hypocrite”).

At first, Jelly Roll was defiant and encouraged the boycott. However by the time his final night of guest hosting rolled around, he gave a much more humble defense about making jokes about presidents who should be “able to take” a few jokes, while he simultaneously reiterated his Christianity and emphasized that mercy should include Democrats and Republicans, emphasizing that everyone is entitled to mercy. Well…okay. Personally I’d never even heard of Jelly Roll until the conservative pundits brought up some clips of his infamous anti-Trump monologue, and I add that I agree philosophically with Jelly Roll’s points, and of course I can’t boycott somebody I never heard of.

What I do question is his sincerity on the final broadcast. If he truly was comfortable with angering his fan-base, then why did he give a semi-apologetic defense of himself on the final show? It never worked for the Dixie Chicks with conservatives, nor did it work for J.K. Rowling with the liberals (although Rowling was never apologetic about her views on the trans culture, she has emphasized that she still leans left politically.). I ask you—- is it brave for artists to crap on their fan base? Is it wise!? Is it cowardly & hypocritical for them to try and half-heartedly justify themselves afterwards? —“Jelly Roll Damage Control” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. Like you, I had never heard of Jelly Roll. I also don’t like Country music, don’t like Jimmy Kimmel (or his show), and am not motivated at all to get on YouTube and seek out the singer’s anti-Trump monologues (or his “humble defense” of those monologues). As I wrote a while back, I stopped caring about celebrities weighing in on politics a long time ago.

I’ll just make a few broad points, to hopefully satisfy your question:

• I think organized boycotts over stuff like this are pretty lame. If an individual doesn’t want to support an artist or entertainer, because they object to something that person said, fine. It’s a free country. No one’s forcing anyone to give such people their money. But taking on an activist role over it strikes me as a performative display of self-importance. These aren’t elected leaders, or public policy proposals. They’re entertainers.

• If someone wants to question someone else’s Christianity, based on that individual telling some “crude and nasty jokes,” they’re certainly free to do that. But if they go that route, it would be great if they used that same standard for other individuals, who at least claim to be a Christian, when they do the same type of thing. Otherwise, the objection isn’t to the conduct, but rather the specific individual displaying that conduct.

• It’s often (but not always) professionally unwise for an entertainer to publicly express his or her political views — especially if those views are sharp and divisive. It can run the risk of costing them money and opportunities. If someone goes that route, I suppose it could be considered “brave” (depending on the circumstance), and “less brave” if they later try and walk back their comments. But — like I said — I can’t bring myself to care about stuff like this anymore.

Til next week, Emperor.

---

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