FRIDAY: Moulton makes an unfounded claim!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2025

Voters eschew big ballroom: A remarkable moment occurred on this morning's Morning Joe. We're surprised that Mediaite doesn't seem to have caught it.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) made an unsupported claim about President Trump's imagined connection to the Epstein tapes. Instantly, Joe Scarborough jumped in to challenge what Moulton said. He was right to do that.

At some point, we expect to be able to show you what was said. For now, it's on to a set of results from a new survey by the Washington Post / ABC News / Ipsos.

For the record, surveys aren't always accurate. That said, this was the headline on one report about one of this new survey's results:

Americans blame Trump and GOP more than Democrats for shutdown, poll finds

More Americans blame President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress than Democrats for the nearly month-long government shutdown, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll.

More than 4 in 10 U.S. adults—45 percent—say Trump and the GOP are mainly responsible for the shutdown that may lead the government to cut off anti-hunger benefits, has caused air traffic delays and has furloughed hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

Yet the share saying Democrats are at fault has grown slightly, from 30 percent in a Post flash poll when the shutdown began to 33 percent in the latest poll. Among registered voters, 37 percent now blame Democrats, while 46 percent blame Republicans.

And so on from there. We wouldn't call that a gigantic edge. 

This other result, which echoes results from at least one earlier poll, seems more surprising to us, but also more encouraging:

Most Americans oppose East Wing demolition for Trump ballroom, poll finds

Americans oppose President Donald Trump’s demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom building by a 2-to-1 margin, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released Thursday.

Twenty-eight percent of Americans say they support the demolition project, paid for by $300 million in private donations from U.S. businesses and individuals, compared with 56 percent who oppose it, the poll finds. Another 16 percent are not sure whether they support or oppose the project.

That's a substantial margin. Among self-identified Independents, 61% said they oppose the demolition. Only 17% said they support it.

Despite the agitprop recited on Fox, the demolition of the East Wing was a piece of highly unusual behavior. If only the stars of the major Blue American press were willing to focus on the president's endless string of weird behaviors as a serious stand-alone news hook—as a serious ongoing topic.

Moulton's claim will follow, perhaps tomorrow. That moment was also quite unusual. We have no way of knowing whether Moulton's assertion was right or was wrong.


DISORDER(S): Bud and Lou, but Rosie too!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2025

Madness(es), Red and Blue: The ghosts and the goblins were out last night, perhaps one night in advance. 

Over on the Fox News Channel, the nightly burlesque at 10 p.m. featured this ridiculous cast:

Unnamed "cable news" show, 10/30/25
Hotep Jesus: "Known for his fringe conspiracy theories"
Kat Timpf: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Charles Payne: host, Making Money with Charles Payne
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered

The CEO known as "Sends in The Clowns" casts this assault every night. It's a modern form of a type of baggy-pants burlesque.

That said, with Halloween and the World Series here, we're thinking today of Bud and Lou, but also of David Kruh.

In his fascinating book, Always Something Doing: Boston's Infamous Scollay Square, Kruh records a patron's recollection of an entertainment event which took place during the Red Sox-Cardinals series of 1946. 

Was that our own father in that patron's story, cast as the manager? Our father would have been the owner by then, but we can't say for sure:

Always Something Doing

[...]

Going to the Old Howard was always something of a thrill for its patrons, who sometimes saw more than they expected.

It was right after World War II and the Red Sox had been in the World Series and a friend of mine and I went to the Old Howard. Right in the middle of the show, when the comedian is doing his thing, this fat guy came out of one side of the stage chasing this gorgeous-looking girl. Who was it but Costello of Abbott and Costello!

They stopped the show, and the manager came out and introduced them and they reminisced how they had started in burlesque and played the Howard at some point. They were in Boston for the World Series and they decided to come back to their former starting place. They stopped the show and they did "Who's On First." 

(Henry)

Good God! Even as the Series was taking place, the boys appeared, out of nowhere, and they did "Who's On First!"

For the modern sensibility, the premise of that famous bit doesn't even seem to make sense—but, for whatever reason, it's a sacred part of American entertainment history. For reasons we can't begin to explain, we still can't read that brief account without being deeply moved, in a way we can't explain. 

Also, we know what happened in the hall when the manager, whoever he was, brought the boys out that night.

Full disclosure: As of 1946, Bud and Lou were among Hollywood's biggest box office stars. Accurately or otherwise, the leading authority starts us off with this:

Abbott and Costello

Abbott and Costello were an American comedy duo composed of comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, whose work in radio, film, and television made them the most popular comedy team of the 1940s and 1950s, and the highest-paid entertainers in the world during the Second World War. Their patter routine "Who's on First?" is considered one of the most famous comedy routines of all time...

[...]

According to Quigley Publishing's Poll of Exhibitors (1932-2009+), who published The Motion Picture Almanac, Motion Picture Herald, and Motion Picture Daily, for a number of years Abbott and Costello were ranked among the most popular stars in the US.

According to Quigley, the boys were #1 in Hollywood box office as of 1942. They were #3 in 1941 and n 1943. Something else is surprisingly true:

Lou Costello was flat-out, stone-cold funny. Many major comedians aren't, but as we learned some years ago, Costello mysteriously was.

Costello was flat-out funny! We discovered that fact, maybe ten years ago, as we watched the boys doing a "down in the basement of a haunted house" scene in one of their many movies. 

By now, everyone has seen some version of that scene performed a million times. Abbott keeps saying, "Let's get out of here" as a succession of scary noises emerge.  Relentlessly, Costello keeps saying, "Let's just go a bit further."

By now, everyone has seen this scene performed a thousand times. But good grief! When Costello did itit may have been the very first time some such scene was ever performedevery step he took was just flat-out funny.

At any rate, there they were that night, on stage at Boston's Old Howard, and they were very famous. Audiences are stunned when something like that occurs. We know that because of the time we ourselves brought Rosie up, right there at the D.C. Improv, probably in the late 1990s.

Rosie was in town with a show on its way to Broadway. She had called over and asked if she could do some time on stage that Sunday night.

We were the closing act in the show that week. Rosie was at the height of the enormous popularity she had earned at that point in time.

When the regular show was over, we went ahead and brought her up. Right there, in that small room and on that small stage, a very famous, hugely popular person was suddenly standing before that evening's thunderstruck audience.

People think they've died and gone to heaven when some such surprise occurs. After listening to Rosie's recent podcast with Nicolle Wallace, we feel honored by the three brief encounters we had with her down through the various years.

In that podcast, she had us when she said "Anne Frank," but there's much, much more to hear. Have we ever heard such a clear, clean voice?

We can't say we have.

Rosie is one of the people the clowns like to mock, in the most vulgar and stupidest ways, on that Fox News Channel TV program. Bud and Lou came out of vaudeville and burlesque, but that "cable news" show comes out of a garbage can. and it's a pathetic burlesque of human behavior all its own.

It's a madness out of Silo Red that garbage like that is on the air each night. It's a madness out of our own Silo Blue that this garbage can gets opened each night and no one within our own failing nation is willing to say a word.

Bud and Lou came back to the Old Howard as the World Series went on. (The Cardinals won in seven.) Was that our father who brought them up? We have no idea.

A decade later, we would watch their Saturday morning kids TV show and think how dumb they were. No one told us about the family connection—about the photos from 1941, with Bud and Lou cavorting with our mother and father and with two of our older half-siblings somewhere.

Lou Costello was flat-out funny. Many comedians aren't. It isn't even required. Occasionally it turns up.

Tonight, the ghosts and goblins are out. Last evening, at 10 p.m., so were the corporate clowns.

Just about a week ago, we saw a Democratic strategist offer some good sound advice. We refer to the Lady Smith, who had spoken with Jen Psaki with Tommy Christopher looking on:

‘People’s Heads May Explode!’ Jen Psaki And Lis Smith Drop ‘Hard Truths’ on Key Trump Appeal

MSNBC’s Jen Psaki and Democratic strategist Lis Smith dropped some “hard truths” about the way Democrats should deal with a key strength of President Donald Trump’s—his political exploitation of immigration.

Psaki—a former Biden White House press secretary and current host of MSNBC’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki—launched a podcast called The Blueprint with Jen Psaki this year, focused on Democratic strategy and lessons learned.

On this week’s episode, the two veteran politicos conceded that Trump was “right” about the importance of securing the border, and discussed how Democrats can translate that acknowledgment into effective strategy.

Say what? President Trump had been right about something? In fact, Smith was quoting a column by Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY). Writing in the New York Times, Rep. Suozzi had offered this:

“Democrats must concede that Donald Trump was right about the importance of securing the border. And he was right about the need to deport violent criminals who are in this country illegally.”.

Sadly, it seems to us that Suozzi is basically right, even though it may be hard to offer belated concessions to a fairly obvious political truth.

We've often said that the corporate clowns on the Fox News Channel can never be totally wrong. That's because they can always fall back on certain kinds of Blue American madness after they've finished with their ugly and inane lines of night assault.

Shortly after Christopher's report appeared, Benjamin Hart interviewed Smith for New York magazine. He'd seen the podcast with Psaki too. Headline included, here's part of where things went:

Lis Smith Thinks Democrats Treat Voters Like Children

[...]

I was watching an interview you did with Jen Psaki in which you reminisced about working on Obama’s reelection bid in 2012, when the campaign painted Romney as this corporate villain early in defining him and how effective that was. That reminded me of Mamdani a bit—not so much defining his opponents that way but the relentless focus on the economy and affordability. With all this talk about the future direction of the party, do you think that is the most surefire way forward for Democrats right now?

Yes. And the biggest mistake we made in 2024 was not leading every single conversation by talking about the economy. When people feel like they are one accident, one incident, one layoff away from financial collapse, they do not want to hear us starting conversations by saying, “The most existential issue you should care about is democracy.” Or abortion rights. Those are very important issues, don’t get me wrong. But we were not listening to voters, and we were not meeting them where they were.

I think this is part of a trend among Democrats in recent years, where we stopped treating voters like adults. When they would say, “Prices are killing me,” we would say, “Actually, inflation is higher in Sweden.” When they would say, “Crime is out of control,” we’d respond, “Actually, it’s lower than it was 40 years ago.” And when they said, “Hey, shouldn’t we maybe do something about the border?” we said, “Turn off Fox News. That’s a right-wing talking point.”

Voters noticed that. They thought we weren’t listening to them. And that is why they were willing to go vote for someone like Donald Trump. Say what you will about him—he at least was speaking a language of grievance, talking about taking on the status quo that was driving a lot of these problems. And to a lot of people, that was more appealing than people who were talking down to them or not even listening to them.

Extremely sad but true! In that exchange, Smith captures the kind of group dissembling in which we Blues engaged during the campaign—a campaign we managed to (narrowly) lose to an unpopular figure like President Trump. She captures the phony bits of misdirection we would routinely voice in a type of pseudo-response to certain kinds of accusations and complaints.

In many ways, those lame presentations were political malpractice of the Blue American kind. We refer to the repeated, ludicrous claim that the border was shut uptight as a drum, but to other groaners as well, including some of the implausible political stances which were amazingly easy to ridicule as "woke."

It's hard to cop to such sweeping mistakes, but we Blues have yet to explain the things that were done—-and it's those refusals to be forthright on which the Fox News Channel relies.

We still want to tell you about the Michelle Goldberg columnabout a point we think she got wrong, about a point we think she got right. Having said that, let's return to this:

This is a very special night, with ghosts and goblins flying about, and with the World Series on. It was years later when we first saw those photographs, of Bud and Lou with our own mother and father, and when we read about that manager bringing the boys on out.

We've wanted to get back to the podcast Nicolle Wallace staged with Rosie O'Donnell. Have we ever heard a clearer voice?

We don't even agree, in basic ways, with where Rosie seems to have come down with respect to President Trump. But we don't think we've ever heard a clearer, cleaner voice.

The Fox News Channel runs a series of burlesques. Those ludicrous "cable news" shows are a form of Madness Red.

The fact that we Blues refuse to report and discuss those imitations of life is a form of Madness Blue. Also this:

We Blues badly need to get over ourselves. It's a point we'll stress when we discuss the point where we think Goldberg probably made a mistake.

People long for something better. When a star they admire is suddenly present, up on a stage with bright lights on, an audience feels that something bigger and better is suddenly present. 

Voters long for something better, for something straightforward and true.

Forgive us for wandering a bit far afield today. We didn't want to forget Rosie's podcast, and this is a very spooky night, with the goblins and the ghosts known to be all around.


THURSDAY: President wants to lock them up!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2025

Young voters may not be buying: These have been very tiring days. Meanwhile, according to Mediaite, there he has gone once again:

WH Mocks Jeffries and Schumer With New Sombrero Meme After Taco Lunch for Capitol Police

‘He Is a CRIMINAL!’ Trump Calls for Jack Smith to Be Jailed in Jaw-Dropping Truth Social Post

Trump Fumes Chuck Schumer’s Criticism of Prez’s Asia Trip Is ‘Almost Treasonous’

By now, this sort of thing has all been thoroughly normalized. We'd love to hear from medical specialists about an impulse of this type.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is adopting a skeptical stance with respect to the ballyhooed China deal:

NEWS ANALYSIS
Trump’s China Deal May Avert a Crisis of His Own Making
The Trump administration is hailing a potential deal that may return the U.S.-China relationship to where it was before the president began a trade war against Beijing.

NEWS ANALYSIS
The Art of Letting Trump Claim a Win, While Walking Away Stronger
By withholding soybean purchases and rare-earth exports, China extracted relief from U.S. tariffs and delayed export controls, without conceding much in return.

Opinion column, Nicholas Kristof
Trump Lost the Trade War to China

When Trump rashly announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, he badly miscalculated. He seemed to think that China was vulnerable because it exported far more to the United States than it purchased. He apparently didn’t appreciate that much of what China purchased, like soybeans, it could get elsewhere—while Beijing is now the OPEC of rare earth minerals, leaving us without alternative sources....

It soon became obvious that President Xi Jinping of China had us over a barrel, for the United States economy depends on Chinese rare earths far more than China depends on American soybeans.

So it says in the New York Times. And according to a new Economist/YouGov poll, young people have largely stopped buying:

Trump Craters With Young Voters in New Poll—Whopping 63-Point Swing in Net Approval

Without any question, it's only one poll. But we live in a very strange time.


DISORDER(S): Some disorder may be clinical!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2025

Some disorder is not: At present, it seems to us that the United States may be locked in the grip of several disorders.

One would be a clinical "mental disorder," one which would involve the sitting president. (According to the leading authority, the term "mental illness" is no longer preferred.) 

If some such (medical) disorder really does exist, it may raise such questions as these:

Is it possible that President Trump really believes some of the crazier things he says? Does he really believe that his approval numbers are the highest they've ever been? 

Does he really believe that the 2020 election was stolen? Does he believe the things he constantly says about the working of tariffs?

What was going through his mind when he decided to level one part of the White House? When he decided to picture himself dropping excrement on the heads of us the people? Did it even occur to him that these behaviors, as judged by conventional norms of behavior, were highly unusual—strange? 

What may be happening in the mind of a person who is gripped by that (diagnosable) "mental disorder?"

Our press corps has decided that questions like those must never be asked. We'd also refer to the type of cultural change within Red America which Ross Douthat recently described in a column in the New York Times.

Whatever happened to "family values?" For better or for worse, the public discourse of Red America has now transitioned to this:

Taylor Swift’s Latest Reinvention Is Both Coarse and Conservative

[...]

The latest exercise in Swiftiana combines bawdiness with a certain impulse toward conservatism, as the singer embraces suburban dreams of marriage and white-picket fences while rhapsodizing about her fiancé’s reproductive organ. In that sense it’s an appropriate text for the Trump era, when coarseness and right-wing politics have been married in a distinctive way...

So now let’s consider how conservatism and coarseness fit together—because at the very least they share a coalition now. The portions of America that rebelled against progressivism and voted for Donald Trump include some of the country’s most religious precincts but also representatives of all kinds of varieties of libertinism, from raunchy bro-culture “Barstool conservatives” to the polyamory-curious libertarians of Silicon Valley. The Trump administration is stuffed with traditionally inclined Catholics and evangelicals, but its leader is a much-married heathen, his on-again-off-again Silicon Valley ally is a Promethean tycoon with a harem, and the public language of Trump-era conservatism defaults to the scatological without even a residue of puritanism.

This transitionthis move from "family values" to the coarse, the bawdy and the bizarrely scatological—is on full display at the Fox News Channel, where the pied piper of this nut-ball transition sits each day, at 5 p.m. and then at 10, weirdly perched behind his "poop mug."

(He's 61 years old!)

Yesterday afternoon on The Five, this channel's imitation of discourse was highlighted by chatter about "golden showers" and about who's getting "peed on." This strange transition has been underway for more than a decade, wed to the wider decision within the culture to turn the American public discourse over to an assembly of D-list comedians armed with know-nothing podcasts.

These transitions involve a vast array of disordered thinking, powered by the stupidifying practice known as "segregation by viewpoint." That type of intellectual "disorder" may not be linked to a formal medical diagnosis, but over here in Blue America, our heralded news orgs and major pundits have also agreed that we mustn't report or discuss any of this claptrap.

At Fox, the fluids which spill from the can at 10 p.m. are dripping down into the 5 p.m. slotand that imitation of life at 5 p.m. is this nation's most-watched "cable news" program. (The Fox News Channel is, by far, the most watched of these "cable news" channels.) 

We Blue have agreed not to discuss the president's possible (clinical) disorder. We've also agreed not to discuss what happens over at Fox.

As with human tribes of all types, we Blues have a hard time seeing these decisions and practices as signs of our own tribal failure—as signs of our own (colloquial) spiritual / intellectual disorder. We persist in our tribal belief that we are the brilliant, ethical people—that the problems all lie Over There.

With respect to this tribal illusion, sacred Nietzsche called his shot, if only in translation, in The Birth of Tragedy:

We cam imagine the dreamer as he calls out to himself, still caught in the illusion of his dream and without disturbing it, "This is a dream, and I want to go on dreaming."

Within the last week, an unusual thing occurred. A pair of major Democrats suggested that we the Blues should start to look with a clearer eye at our tribe's role in our society's dysfunction. Then too, we still owe you a reaction to Michelle Goldberg's recent column, in which she stated her reaction to the image of the mounds of excrement the president dumped on our heads.

At this site, we aren't sure that the government, such as it was, is ever going to open again. We aren't completely sure that a fundamental act of secession hasn't already occurred.

That said, we'll start tomorrow with Lis Smith, speaking to MSNBC's Jen Psaki. Also, what did Goldberg perhaps get wrong in her column? (And what did she get right?)

We'll opine about that matter too. The ghosts and goblins will be about, and we'll be praising ornamental pumpkins as the day moves along.

Tomorrow: Those of us who align and vote Blue


WEDNESDAY: Why are Democrats holding out?

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025

As told on the Fox News Channel: At long last, the word is going forth to the nations.

We refer to the two American nations, to America Blue and Red. This very afternoon, the New York Times is reporting that the word has started to go forth about Obamacare—i.e., the Affordable Care Act:

Obamacare Prices Become Public, Highlighting Big Increases

The Trump administration has released a preview of the available plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces in 30 states, giving Americans who buy their own health insurance a first look at just how much prices would go up.

Insurers have increased rates significantly for next year—an average of about 30 percent in the states where the federal government manages markets, and an average of 17 percent in states that run their own markets, according to a new analysis from KFF, the health research group.

But most of the more than 20 million Americans covered by the Affordable Care Act don’t currently pay the full price of their insurance, because they qualify for income-based tax credits that help make the plans affordable. That financial assistance has been in place since the federal A.C.A. marketplaces opened in 2014, and became even more generous in 2021, when Congress increased the aid. The extra help is scheduled to expire next year unless Congress acts.

The looming expiration of those subsidies has been a key sticking point in congressional wrangling over the government shutdown, which has lasted nearly a month. Democrats have demanded an extension of the subsidies as a condition of supporting legislation funding the entire government...

As everyone knows, "Democrats have demanded an extension of the subsidies as a condition of supporting legislation funding the entire government." Meanwhile, how much extra might a person be required to pay? The report includes this example:

Sue Monahan, a former university administrator in Oregon who is now retired, is one of the many Americans who face a steep increase if the enhanced subsidies expire. Ms. Monahan, 61, paid $439 a month for her coverage in 2025 after receiving a federal tax credit that covers roughly half of the premiums for her plan. When she went to shop for next year’s plan, she learned that the monthly cost would jump to $1,059 for the same plan with an annual deductible of $7,100.

Ms. Monahan said that as a former kidney donor, going without insurance is not an option. “It’s not there for what you foresee; it’s there for the unexpected expensive events,” she said. 

Her cost would go up a lot.

For the record, did we mention the following fact? This time, we'll place it in italics:

"Democrats have demanded an extension of the [Obamacare] subsidies as a condition of supporting legislation funding the entire government."

Everybody understands what Democrats are demanding. Rightly or wrongly, Dems are holding out for this:

Democrats have demanded an extension of the [Obamacare] subsidies as a condition of supporting legislation funding the entire government.

For the record, those subsidies go to American citizens like Monahannot to unauthorized / undocumented / illegal residents / immigrants / aliens.

That's what Democrats are doing—unless you live in Red America and thereby receive your round-the-clock messaging from TV shows on the Fox News Channel. Last Saturday morning, the messaging came bright and early on Fox & Friends Weekend, courtesy of the deeply devout Rachel Campos-Duffy:

JENKINS (10/25/25): Democrats seem to really think that this is working in their favor. But talk about a telling moment, when Chad Pergram, our Capitol Hill senior reporter, sat down with the number two Democrat. She basically says the quiet part out loud, admitting that families will suffer under Chuck Schumer's government shutdown.

[...]

CAMPOS-DUFFY: The pain is going to—is spreading out among all Americans, and is being touched by all Americans. And they're willing to leverage that for what? So that illegals can get health care. It just seems so ridiculous.

If you live in Red America, you're routinely told that Democrats are holding out for that remarkably different reason. That very night, on that very same channel, we saw Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) say this to Lara Trump:

TRUMP (10/25/25): We're here in Washington, D.C., and we're in the midst of, you know, almost the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. What so you think needs to happen, from maybe both sides of the aisle, to finally bring this to an end?

STEFANIK: Well first of all, Republicans have done our job. We passed a clean funding bill—and this is the same bill that Democrats voted for thirteen times, except this time they chose to shut down the government. They're trying to leverage the American people, hurt the American people, to focus on their partisan priorities. They want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to give illegals health care.

As you may already know, Stefanik can be like that. We could have given you more examples, but we watch football on TV in the fall.

At any rate, that messaging is standard on the "cable news" channel in question. Red America, Blue America? Under current corporate arrangements, never the twain shall meet!


DISORDER(S): The No Kings marchers were mentally ill!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025

Diagnosis by clowns: It would be hard to exceed the dumbness of what Emily Compagno said.

It's as we noted yesterday. Speaking on a kitsch show on the Fox News Channel, she somehow came up with this:

Fox Co-Host Takes Offense at California Congressman Being From Iowa: ‘Pretends To Be From the Bay Area’

Fox News co-host Emily Compagno criticized Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as someone who “pretends to be from the Bay Area.”

On Monday’s Outnumbered on Fox News, the hosts discussed Democrats’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make room for a ballroom.

[...]

Compagno, who grew up in the Bay Area, then pivoted to attacking Swalwell’s backstory. The lawmaker was born in Sac City, Iowa, and was raised there and in Dublin, California after his family moved to the Bay Area. He represents the 14th congressional district, which is in Alameda County.

“But for some very small-minded and bitter people who come from, where does he come from? Iowa? And then he moved to Dublin, California, and pretends to be from the Bay Area?” she said.

As we noted yesterday, a younger version of Rep. Swalwell "moved to Dublin, California," with his mother and father, when he was in middle school. The perpetually overwrought Compagno—is she being eyed for the Judge Jeanine chair?—seemed to feel that Swalwell shouldn't be representing that California congressional district on the basis of that checkered past.

It would be quite hard to get dumber than that. Sadly, one day before Compagno's critique, the congressman gave it a try:

Swalwell Calls On 2028 Democratic Nominees To Pledge To Destroy Trump’s ‘Monument To Corruption’ Ballroom

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) proposed a stiff litmus test for any Democrat who hopes to be elected president in 2028: pledge to destroy Donald Trump’s $300 million ballroom.

Swalwell posted to X on Sunday, “Don’t even think of seeking the Democratic nomination for president unless you pledge to take a wrecking ball to the Trump Ballroom on DAY ONE.”

For the record, the congressman actually did make that proposal!

"Yet this is you," Ezra Pound once wrote. For Blue Americans, the line must be amended:

Yet this is (frequently) us.

We humans! Were we built for this line of workfor running a very large modern nation? Again and again, the answer seems to be no. Just consider how dumb it got on Monday night's Gutfeld! program:

The CEO had sent in the flyweights and clowns, as she does each night. On one of the most-watched programs on our nation's most-watched "cable news" channel, this is the group which was scripting one of our two failing nations:

Gutfeld!: Monday, October 27, 2025
Joe DeVito: comedian
Kat Timpf: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Guy Benson: Fox News Channel contributor
Michele Tafoya: former NFL sideline reporter

The comedians and the former sideline reporter were going to puzzle things out. Before long, Swalwell's peculiar recommendation became the topic, and the program's host said this:

GUTFELD (10/27/25): Didn't Trump want to have this [ballroom] built during Obama's years as a gift or something? It seems like I remember reading that, or maybe I dreamt it. I have really, really vivid dreams.

I keep hammering this, Michele, but it's like this story is a two-step process. You hear it, and then you Google it and you find out it's B.S. All you have to do is go—like what Joe said—all you have to [do is] Google "past renovations" and the story falls apart. But they just assume no one's going to do it.

Translation, within the prevailing context:

If you Google "past renovations," you'll see that President Obama changed the location of the White House putting green. This means that it was perfectly normal when President Trump demolished the East Wing, after saying that he was going to do something totally different.

So goes standard reasoning on the Fox News Channel. The panelists now spent some time alluding to a long-discarded sexual claim once directed at Rep. Swalwell.

The sexual claim in question is now 12 years old. As CBS News (and everyone else) reported, the House Ethics Committee formally cleared Swalwell of any wrongdoing in the matter. But when Suzanne Scott pries the lid off the can, that discarded insinuation and claim still comes slithering out, with some regularity, on the Gutfeld! program.

Quickly, the imitation of a conversation got dumber and worse. At Fox News Digital, a psychotherapist had diagnosed the 5-7 million people who had participated in the "No Kings" protests.

This provided perfect fodder for this program's standard tribal fare:

GUTFELD: No Kings was therapy! So, Kat, a psychotherapist called Jonathan Alpert called the No Kings protest "group therapy in the streets," blending emotional catharsis with activism, which is not surprising when you learn that the typical attendee was an educated white woman in her 40s. 

The expert added that a lot of these people are not happy within their personal lives and are projecting their own anxiety and anger onto other.

Does this make sense to you?

Inevitably, Timpf said it did make senseit did make sense to her. "I'm like, this was just a hang," she thoughtfully said.

Soon, Gutfeld followed with this:

GUTFELD: It's funny, though. Kat says she was home with her kid. That's kind of the issue. A lot of these people don't have family, and this is their family...You have this correlation of a high level of mental illness in that same group.

Even the "expert" in the Fox News Digital piece hadn't said anything about mental illness within this large and pitiful group. By way of contrast, Dr. Gutfeld was able to spot the childlessness and the mental illness all through the 5-7 million people who took part in the No Kings events—and soon, a second doctor was IN.

Soon, a second doctor was IN. Coming in from the sideline and from the cold, Dr. Tafoya said this:

TAFOYA: Even if these [events] weren't destructive, there's so much anger there. That's what I see. I see anger dressed up in inflatable, you know, cow suits. That's a lot of what you saw was in these inflatable animal suits, but with really angry people inside. Now that could eventually get dangerous. I don't know.

I think this whole No Kings branding...It's so stupid and they tried to come off as so intelligent and intellectual and it's just

GUTFED: Another imaginary problem.

This is the standard messaging offered on this propaganda show every night. The Others—the people in Blue America—are angry, stupid, mentally ill. In these ways, the clowns engaged by the CEO are creating a world in which Red Americans are being told, night after night after night after night, that they are a group (and a nation) apart.

Within the halls of Silo Red, it gets extremely stupid. Inside the halls of Silo Blue, this endless, disordered night assault doesn't get reported and it doesn't get discussed.

Along with its host's undisguised misogyny and his undying focus on human waste, the sheer stupidity of this "cable news" show is its distinguishing characteristic. Can a modern nation survive this kind of profit-centered corporate tribal messaging?

Can a modern nation survive? Tomorrow, a suggestion from two major Blues concerning our own tribe's conduct.

Tomorrow: Psaki speaks with Lis Smith

TUESDAY: Gloomy headlines in the Washington Post...

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2025

...bring a question to mind: We've asked the question before:

In the Oscar-nominated film, The Sixth Sense (1999!), the Bruce Willis character doesn't know that he has already died. Is it a bit like that with the American nation? Has it already ceased to exist?

The nation in question was always imperfect. In one major way, hundreds of years of brutal behavior created a cultural whirlpool from which it has proven to be extremely hard to extricate ourselves.

But has that nation ceased to exist? The question popped into our heads within the last hour as we scanned these headlines at the Washington Post's web site:

Democratic states sue to force SNAP payments during shutdown
The Agriculture Department has $5.5 billion in back-up funds for food stamp benefits but says it can’t use them.

Head Start programs could close this week, jeopardizing child care

Callers to Social Security wait for hours: ‘This is ridiculous’
The average wait time for a callback peaked at about 2½ hours from January to March, according to internal agency data obtained by The Post.

Trump put allies on obscure board set to decide White House ballroom’s fate
Current and former members of the National Capital Planning Commission panned the president’s East Wing demolition and worried that his ballroom would be rubber-stamped.

Citing autopen use, GOP-led House Oversight Committee calls Biden actions ‘illegitimate’ 

Those reports are all in the Washington Post. (Owner Jeff Bezos has said he was changing the direction of the opinion pages, not of the news reporting.) Then too, we're treated to this at the New York Times:

‘No Idea How Long People Can Hold Out’: Federal Workers Feel Brunt of Shutdown
As more than one million government employees go without pay, many are turning to side jobs and food banks to make ends meet.

Trump Says He Is Prepared to Send ‘More Than the National Guard’ Into U.S. Cities
In a speech to American troops assembled in Japan on Tuesday, President Trump said he would escalate his orders to active duty branches of the military if he decides it is appropriate. 
Adelita Grijalva Just Wants to Get to Work. The House Speaker Won’t Let Her.

Regarding Rep-elect Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Mike Johnson won't swear her in to the House seat to which she believes she's been elected. But is it possible that the office in question no longer exists?

We're a little tired today. Maybe that's all it is when Bruce Willis pops into our heads.


DISORDER(S): When Swalwell made an imperfect suggestion...

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 202

...up jumped the Fox News Channel: We've asked if the government will ever reopen—and we were being only semi-quixotic.

Has a secular form of the mysterium tremendum perhaps already arrived? Along the way, a question comes to mind:

Are we now locked in the situation Senator Schumer described way back at the start? We refer to a situation in which closing the government would let the sitting president accomplish many tasks he couldn't accomplish if the government stayed open.

Would it be easy to shut the government down, but hard to get it opened back up? Did Senator Schumer call his shot the first time around? 

Frankly, we're just asking.

Back then, we the Blue American people screamed and yelled at Schumer, and so the shutdown came. Is it possible that our judgment at that juncture was poor? Because quite often if it weren't for all the imperfect judgment, there would be no human judgment at work in the world at all.

No one has perfect judgment, not even us Blues Over Here. The bizarre bad judgment of movement Reds has been a wonder to the world, a point we'll explore as the week proceeds. But this very Sunday afternoon, the analysts screamed and tore at their hair when they clicked over to Mediaite and found themselves looking at this:

Swalwell Calls On 2028 Democratic Nominees To Pledge To Destroy Trump’s ‘Monument To Corruption’ Ballroom

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) proposed a stiff litmus test for any Democrat who hopes to be elected president in 2028: pledge to destroy Donald Trump’s $300 million ballroom.

Swalwell posted to X on Sunday, “Don’t even think of seeking the Democratic nomination for president unless you pledge to take a wrecking ball to the Trump Ballroom on DAY ONE.”

In a follow-up tweet, he added, “Or, as @RubenGallego proposes, rename it the Barack Obama Ballroom. But a Trump monument to corruption will not stand.”

Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House over the period of a week to make way for the proposed 90,000 square-foot ballroom designed to accommodate some 1,000 seated guests.

And so on from there. Rep. Swalwell was now saying that a viable Democratic candidate has to take a sacred pledge to tear the new ballroom down.

We wish we could say that this isn't the way we tend to think of Rep. Swalwell. As you may recall, for reasons which made no obvious sense, he ran for president in the 2019-2020 Democratic primaries.

He was 38 when he announced for the race. Less than three months later, after participating in one Democratic debate, he was still 38 years old when he announced he was dropping out.

None of this means that he's a bad person, because—simply put—he isn't. But as of Sunday, there he was, calling for war on the still-unbuilt ballroom. That strikes us as amazingly bad political judgment, though then again others may differ.

Imperfect judgment afflicts us all. That said, imperfect judgment is a different critter from a (diagnosable clinical) "personality disorder," the kind of (clinical) disorder we discussed, once again, in yesterday morning's report.

In our view, we Blues have exercised a lot of imperfect judgment over the course of the past sixty years. In our view, that history of imperfect judgment helps explain how President Trump has ended up, two separate times, sitting inside the White House.

In our view, it was extremely strange when the president decided to demolish one part of that building in the extremely strange, though wholly typical, way he recently did. We'll return to that type of peculiar judgment before the week is over.

Alas! Over at Mediaite, the report about questionable Blue American judgment arrived in a set of three on Sunday—or at least, so it says here. We Blues have tended to be very slow to come to terms with our ongoing political errors, and so we thought this might be the week to contemplate such possible shortcomings in our tribe's political judgment.

First, though, consider the madness which emerges each day from inside Silo Red. Yesterday, shortly after noon Eastern time, there she went again!

We're speaking of the relentless Emily Compagno who, guest-hosting on the Fox News Channel program Outnumbered, actually hauled off and told Red America this:

Fox Co-Host Takes Offense at California Congressman Being From Iowa: ‘Pretends To Be From the Bay Area’

Fox News co-host Emily Compagno criticized Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as someone who “pretends to be from the Bay Area.”

On Monday’s Outnumbered on Fox News, the hosts discussed Democrats’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make room for a ballroom. On Sunday, Swalwell insisted that a must-have for any 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful is a pledge to tear down the structure upon taking office.

[...]

Compagno, who grew up in the Bay Area, then pivoted to attacking Swalwell’s backstory. The lawmaker was born in Sac City, Iowa, and was raised there and in Dublin, California after his family moved to the Bay Area. He represents the 14th congressional district, which is in Alameda County.

“But for some very small-minded and bitter people who come from, where does he come from? Iowa? And then he moved to Dublin, California, and pretends to be from the Bay Area?” she said. “For Eric Swalwell to now pretend to be hip and think that he has some weigh in about it, Americans care deeply about a lot of other things.”

It's hard to believe, but the persistently malaprop-afflicted Compagno actually said that! We suggest that you read the full report at Mediaite and look at the videotape.

How dumb does it get inside Silo Red when the CEO sends in the [stars]? Compagno was calling Swalwell a pretender because he was born in Iowa, not in her own Bay Area!

Given the basic nature of the American project, it would be hard to get much dumber than that. But this is the kind of intellectual judgment which is exercised, around the clock, on the Fox News Channel.

Is Rep. Swalwell working some sort of scam on his district's voters? We decided to conduct a background check. Starting with this report by leading authority, we were told this:

Eric Swalwell

Eric Michael Swalwell (born November 16, 1980) is an American lawyer and politician serving as the U.S. representative from California's 14th congressional district since 2023, having previously represented the 15th district from 2013 to 2023. His district covers most of eastern Alameda County and part of central Contra Costa County. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

[...]

Swalwell was born on November 16, 1980, in Sac City, Iowa. He is the oldest of four sons of Eric Nelson Swalwell and Vicky Joe Swalwell, both of whom are Republicans. During his early childhood, his father served as police chief in Algona, Iowa. After leaving Iowa, the family eventually settled in Dublin, California. He graduated from Wells Middle School and then from Dublin High School in 1999.

When his family moved to California, Swalwell decided to accompany them. Based upon his graduation from Wells Middle School, he was perhaps in sixth grade at the time. 

For additional background, we give you this:

Eric Swalwell–Dublin High Class of ’99 Alumni and Alameda County Prosecutor

[...]

Eric started his Dublin education experience at Wells Middle School in 1992 where he developed both a love of soccer and what would later become his career choice—the law. Wells Middle School and later Dublin High School’s Mock Trial teams developed Eric’s passion for the law. Eric correctly predicted in his article for the Dublin High Class of ’99 Yearbook regarding the Mock Trial Team: “Some of the students on this team may even go on to a profession in law.”

In 1992, he would have been eleven years old—admittedly, going on twelve!

For viewers of the Fox News Channel, this makes him a pretender. This is the sort of reasoning which emerges from this, our nation's most-watched "cable news" channel (by far), on a round-the-clock basis pretty much every day of the week, and then on into the night.

Rep. Swalwell wants to tear the unbuilt ballroom down. Tribune Compagno was actively tearing down the simplest part of Americanism, in which a 11-year-old child is allowed to move from one state to another accompanied by his parents.

We're off this morning for a photo shoot down at the medical mission. For that reason, we're going to leave our rumination right here for the moment.

That said, a "personality disorder" is one thing. Imperfect intellectual judgment can also be said to be a disorder, though of a vastly different kind.

We Blues would be much better off if we could come to terms with our own possible errors in political judgment. And over the weekend, good God:

We looked in on a podcast where a Democratic strategist seemed to be suggesting that we do that very thing!

It struck us as a good idea. We'll post again this afternoon, and we'll continue with this examination of various types of human disorder(s) when we post tomorrow.

We're all afflicted with imperfect judgment. A (serious clinical) "personality disorder" is a tragic and a wholly different thing.

Tomorrow: Other possible misjudgments


MONDAY: Is Margaret Brennan hearing footsteps?

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2025

Fear comes to CBS: Are journalists at some news orgs beginning to tailor their work in a way that's designed to keep them out of the president's sites? 

Could that be especially true at certain targeted news orgs? At sites which recently made a leadership change, perhaps of a certain type?

We ask those questions after watching the tape of Margaret Brennan's interview with Hakeem Jeffries on yesterday's Face the Nation. Lengthy headline included, the report at Mediaite starts out exactly like this:

CBS’s Margaret Brennan Grills Hakeem Jeffries About His Claim Trump is Trying to ‘Rig’ the 2026 Election: ‘How Do You Justify’ That Language?!

CBS’s Margaret Brennan accused House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) of hypocrisy over his rhetoric on election integrity.

In a tense exchange on Sunday’s Face the Nation, Brennan called out Jeffries for comments he’s made in recent days accusing President Donald Trump of trying to “rig” the 2026 election by encouraging state legislatures to gerrymander the Congressional map in Republicans’ favor.

“Donald Trump is trying to rig the midterm elections,” Jeffries said in a speech last Sunday (via Punchbowl News). “He wants to alter the congressional maps all across the country, starting in Texas, to try to rob all of you and the American people the ability to actually make the decision in a free and fair election as to who should be representing your interest in Congress.”

Surely, everyone knows what Jeffries means when says that President Trump is trying to rig next year's mid-term elections by means of congressional redistricting. It started in Texas, at the president's direction, then moved on to other states.

Whatever you may think of what Texas has agreed to do, everyone surely knows what Jeffries is talking about when he uses that language. Everyone except Brennan, who challenged him two separate times for his use of that troubling term. 

Rather late in the interview, this was the first challenge she posed. For the full transcript, click here:

BRENNAN (10/26/25): I want to ask you about something you said. You said Democrats–"There are no election deniers on our side of the aisle." You said that back in January. 

But recently you've been using the term "rigged elections" in reference the upcoming midterms.

Democrats were appalled when President Trump used language like that. How do you justify using that now? Doesn't that undermine faith for voters you need to show up?

Why have Democrats been appalled when the president has said that the 2020 election was "rigged?" Fellow citizens, please! 

Democrats have been appalled because there has been no evidence, at any point in the past five years, to justify the president's claim. 

Meanwhile, why would Jeffries use that same language with respect to the midterm redistricting? Whatever you may think of the unusual redistricting, it's obvious what people like Jeffries have meant by the current claim. Surely, no one is puzzled, at this point, by the nature of the objection.

Despite that fact, Brennan persisted, floating several implied accusations about Jeffries' use of the term. Why would he reject the use of that language in the previous case while employing it in this instance?

CBS News has been in the sites of the sitting president during this second Trump term. The network's corporate owner recently gifted the network with a new editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, who is expected to take CBS in a more centrist or conservative or even Trump-friendly direction.

Weiss may end up doing great work. For ourselves, we'll wait to see what happens.

Brennan's questions struck us as strange. Down here on Earth among us humans, that may be how power works.

DISORDER(S): East Wings come and East Wings go!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2025

But human disorder remains: East Wings come and East Wings go but the time for the ballroom was now.

On this campus, we don't even necessarily disagree with this assessment, as offered by Ross Douthat, New York Times headline included:

Why Trump’s East Wing Demolition Needed to Happen

[...]

The case for Trump’s ballroom is connected to these failures. First, it is simply good to build a White House ballroom; the presidency has needed one for a long time, and it’s absurd that the leader of a superpower has to host state dinners inside temporary tents.

Have we the people been needing a ballroom? Everything is possible! 

Meanwhile, at the partially reinvented Washington Post, the editors may have been working to keep owner Jeff Bezos out of the commander's sites. Headline included, this was the paper's official editorial about the way the East Wing disappeared:

In defense of the White House ballroom

The teardown of the White House’s East Wing this week is a Rorschach test. Many see the rubble as a metaphor for President Donald Trump’s reckless disregard of norms and the rule of law, a reflection of his willingness to bulldoze history and a temple to a second Gilded Age, paid for by corporate donors. Others see what they love about Trump: A lifelong builder boldly pursuing a grand vision, a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo and a developer slashing through red tape that would stymie any normal politician.

[...]

Trump joins a long list of presidents who have left their imprint on the White House. Theodore Roosevelt replaced greenhouses to construct the West Wing. William Howard Taft constructed the first Oval Office in 1909. Richard M. Nixon converted a swimming pool into the press briefing room in 1970. The modern East Wing wasn’t even built until World War II to cover up an underground bunker. Harry S. Truman gutted the White House interior and added the balcony that bears his name. Purists decried it. Now it’s a hallmark.

The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.

Strong leader President Trump will be decisively building a ballroom in what was once the East Wing's back yard. As if in thrall to Larry the Cable Guy, he was willing to "Git-R-Done."

The editors hailed his decisive action while perhaps ignoring the metaphorical rubble of which the demolition may form the latest part. They ignored the strange behaviors which preceded this unusual actionand, within the mainstream guild, it's still against the law to mention the "personality disorder" which may e tangled up in this array of peculiar parts.

To wit:

Before he tore the East Wing down, the president posted a video which pictured himself dropping excrement on the heads of us the people. The editorial board, whoever they are, offered no assessment of that.

Before that, he'd offered a Truth Social post which called the Democratic Party "the party of Satan." Also, he'd offered a Truth Social video which showed Barack Obama, a former president, being handcuffed and frog-marched away.

He had hailed the wonders of the magic bedsand then too, there has been all the apparent disorder which flowed from the apparent nut-balls he has decided to assemble around him:

The peculiar claim by his DNI that President Obama had been guilty of a "treasonous conspiracy," presumably against the United States. 

The two (2) occasions on which his Secretary of Homeland Security went on TV and told the story, in weird detail, of the bad hombre who was so bad that he—"a cannibal," as it turned outtried to eat his own arm to effectuate an escape from the handcuffs which were enabling his deportation.

What's taking place inside the head of a person willing to tell that story—a person who is willing to tell that story two times?

Then too, there were and are the president's ongoing demands to keep locking his opponents up. The editors blew past these surrounding behaviors as they praised the sitting president for tearing the East Wing down.

Various types of mental disorder may seem to inhabit this White House. As the editorial board praised the president's decisive action, they ignored the possibility that his remarkably odd behaviors, not excluding the demolition, may stem from a "personality disorder" (clinical term) which he may have inherited from his "high-functioning sociopath" father when he was still in the womb.

Did some such genetic event take place? Could it bring on a type of (serious, diagnosable) "personality disorder?" 

Journalists have agreed not to wonder or ask. But if the leading authority can be believed, medical science has even demonstrated this:

Antisocial personality disorder

[...] 

In the specific genes that may be involved, one gene that has shown particular promise in its correlation with ASPD is the gene that encodes for monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A), an enzyme that breaks down monoamine neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine. Various studies examining the gene's relationship to behavior have suggested that variants of the gene resulting in less MAO-A being produced (such as the 2R and 3R alleles of the promoter region) have associations with aggressive behavior in men.

Or not! For more on the apparent state of the science, click here for last Friday's report. But the press corps has decided that medical science of this sort must be disappeared in cases like this. And so, after the president made the East Wing disappear, the editorial board did the same thing with respect to the developing state of current medical science.

(Meanwhile, who sits on this Bezos-era editorial board? We've searched on several occasions now, but we can't seem to find out.)

As always, unintentional humor existed as the Usefuls at the Fox News Channel kept selling the company line. On Saturday's Fox & Friends Weekend, there sat Kayleigh McEnany, the Harvard Law School grad, telling Charlie Hurt how stupid this whole brouhaha was:

HURT (10/25/25): And of course, the White House has been under lots and lots of renovations over the yearsmost famously, or most importantly, most significantly, Harry Truman completely gutted the White House during his presidency.

MCENANY: Yeah, I mean, look at these images [on the studio wall]. They're striking. This is called, as Karoline [Leavitt] said, "demolition." And you do demolition in order to rebuild bigger, greater and better. And who better to do that than the guy who built the New York City skyline, President Donald J. Trump?

Except within the talking points of this "cable news" channel, s of this corporate child, President Trump didn't actually "build the New York City skyline." (Neither did anyone else.) As to what President Truman did, here was historian Tim Naftali, helping Anderson Cooper's viewers know what these messengers left out:

COOPER (10/23/25): Tim, is this the same as past presidents who have, you know, renovated? Harry Truman, you know, as we pointed out and David [Axelrod] reiterated, you know, gutted from the inside.

NAFTALI: Well, David is right that the White House has evolved...So indeed, Harry Truman did have tothe entire Truman family had to move out of the White House. But why?

Because the place was no longer structurally sound. The Corps of Engineers said it was going to fall down. That's why he left. And how did they rebuild it? They rebuilt it with guidance from a bipartisan commission with members chosen by the Congress of the United States and the President, and that commission helped design the new White House. 

So the idea that was done unilaterally by Truman is actually made up.

So it went as Naftali challenged the story McEnany and Hurt "made up." In fairness, they were working from material their corporate owners had placed on the wall behind themmisleading material the owners had taken straight from the Trump Administration itself.

Is some sort of "personality disorder" involved in this president's unusual behaviors? Whatever the answer may be, intellectual disorder is never far from the scene whenever we humans split ourselves into tribes and construct our dueling narratives.

We've suggested that you pity the child who may have been born with variants of a gene resulting in less MAO-A being produced. That said, we've also tried to record the erratic behaviors which may be resulting from that possible genetic disorder.

Could those erratic behaviors possibly be producing real danger? Has serious harm to the nation's functioning already been done? At the Fox News Channel, viewers will routinely be exposed to selective informationand over here, in Blue America, the disorders, of various types, may sometimes seem to be general too.

Is there any way to emerge from our nation's current tribal mess? The Washington Post, like the Fox News Channel, basically seemed to be reciting the Trump Admin's points.

But what are our own Blue American cadres saying? This might be the perfect week to consider the way those od ud in Blue America have also managed to fail.

Tomorrow: When Blue American cadres react