RACE: Maya Wiley is very sharp!

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026

Are we sure she got this right? Philip Kennicott works for the Washington Post. At this link, the newspaper thumbnails his tenure:   

Philip Kennicott  

Philip Kennicott is the Pulitzer Prize-winning art and architecture critic of The Washington Post. He has been on staff at The Post since 1999, first as classical music critic, then as culture critic. In 2011, he combined art and architecture into a beat focused on visual culture and public space. He is now the Post's culture critic, focused on cultural issues and the arts in general.  

According to the leading authority, he graduated summa cum laude from Yale—with a degree in philosophy, no less!  

Be all that as it may, Kennicott likes the Obama Presidential Center more than some other critics. Back on June 2, his review of the complex appeared beneath this dual headline:   

Art
The Obama Center opens as a time warp to an old political order   
Despite a range of controversies, the Obama Presidential Center makes a good first impression—even the “Obamalisk” at its center. 

Early in his review, Kennicott mentioned the current president's "childish meme on social media" about the Obama Center. In that childish meme, the current president had portrayed the center as "a monumental trash can surrounded by an urban clutter of cars and telephone poles." 

So our failing nation's Ozymandias had portrayed the place. Along the way in his own review, Kennicott offered this intriguing claim:  

Something dark and catastrophic was brewing during the Obama years, and it seems, in hindsight, that America was sleeping when it should have been on alert.

"Something dark and catastrophic was brewing?" Some will agree, some won't. 

Almost surely, Kennicott was alleging the existence of "something dark and catastrophic" on the right, but the current version of that strain was brewing well before the Obama years—for example, in the crackpot attempts by the very pious Reverend Falwell to persuade the world that Bill and Hillary Clinton had apparently somehow been involved in a wide array of murders.  

So the pious Falwell had pimped it out during the bulk of the 1990s. During that juncture, the darker forces on the right were also attempting to prove that Hillary Clinton was involved, somehow, in the death (by suicide) of Vince Foster, a high Clinton official and a lifelong Clinton friend. 

In short:

Long before the Obama years, blatantly crackpot behavior was general over America as something dark and catastrophic—and baldly deranged—intruded itself on the discourse.  

The Clintons murder the folks they don't like? How much cracked pottery has been involved in the attempt to keep this theme alive, even in the present day?

If you watch the garbage can the Fox News Channel spills out each night at 10 p.m. Eastern, you'll see a baldly disordered cable news nutcase who works, on an almost nightly basis, to keep the image of Hillary Clinton as a murderer alive. This is the garbage can his corporate owners have chosen. 

Also, this is the garbage can Blue America agrees to ignore.

"Something dark and catastrophic was brewing?" Did this strain go national in 1988, when Rush Limbaugh's radio program entered national syndication? 

In March 1994, this tiny man behind the bluster and girth shoved the garbage can down the road on the way to its current residence in the halls of the Gutfeld! program. In this report in July 1994, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) started by recalling the basics of what had happened:   

Koppel Covers for Limbaugh’s Rumor-Mongering   

Ted Koppel’s special (ABC Viewpoint, 4/19/94) on press coverage of Whitewater was a perfect opportunity to take Rush Limbaugh to task for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories. But instead, ABC journalists Koppel and Jeff Greenfield let Limbaugh off the hook.  

On his March 10 radio broadcast, Limbaugh had announced the following in urgent tones:   

"OK, folks, I think I got enough information here to tell you about the contents of this fax that I got. Brace yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just been told will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel this afternoon…. What it is is a bit of news which says… there’s a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park."

So said Limbaugh that day, live and direct from the syndicated garbage can. As happenstance had it, we were driving through West Virginia that afternoon. We heard this shot heard round the world as we motored along.   

El Rushbo had offered fresh garbage right from the can, as his successors do today on a nightly basis. The report by FAIR continued:

[continuing directly]
After he returned from a commercial break, Limbaugh began referring to the story as a “rumor,” but continued to claim that the story was that “the Vince Foster suicide was not a suicide.”

Limbaugh was referring to an item in a newsletter put out by the Washington, D.C. firm of Johnson Smick International. The newsletter, relating a rumor that has no apparent basis in fact, reported that White House attorney Foster’s suicide occurred in an apartment owned by White House associates, and that his body was moved to the park where it was found.

Limbaugh took this baseless rumor from a small insiders’ newsletter and broadcast it to his radio audience of millions, adding his own new inaccuracies: The newsletter did not report–as Limbaugh claimed–that Foster was murdered, or that the apartment was owned by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Limbaugh’s repetition of an unfounded rumor has been credited (Chicago Tribune, 3/11/94; Newsweek, 3/21/94) with contributing to a plunge in the stock market on the day it was aired.  

The fallout from El Rushbo's garbage was enormous. Even then, something dark and catastrophic was emerging, on a daily basis, from the nation's garbage can.  

At this point, we jump ahead 32 years, to Sunday evening, June 14 of the present year.

We jump ahead to the UFC event staged on the White House lawn that evening. Just to refresh you, the garbage can popped open that night and this dumbbell emerged:  

After White House bout, UFC fighter disparages Michelle Obama as ‘a man’

UFC fighter Josh Hokit used his post-bout interview Sunday night at the White House to disparage former first lady Michelle Obama.

In a post-fight interview, the heavyweight fighter praised President Donald Trump for hosting the event, which was intended to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

He then insulted the mother of one of his rivals, thanked Jesus and ended by shouting: “And lastly—Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?”

Some in the audience laughed at Hokit’s remark, which is rooted in a baseless far-right conspiracy theory. Right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan, who was conducting the post-fight interview, did not follow up with Hokit on the comment.

So began Amy Wang's report about what happened that night.   

The following day, on Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace didn't mention this moronic, insulting event. On Tuesday, she spoke about the event with Maya Wiley, who began by saying this:   

Well, let me start by saying this. This is racist.  

Later, Wiley described Hokit's ugly / stupid behavior as "bigotry." She said, "This is evil come alive in words,"

Maya Wiley is very sharp. To our eye and ear, she seemed to be stricken this day, and there's no obvious reason why she shouldn't have been.    

By now, the claim had fairly widely spread—the claim that Hokit's pathetic performance had been a racist attack. But is it clear that that's the case? Is it possible that something else was going on when Hokit launched his pitiful attack?   

We ask that question for a reason. As we've frequently noted, the little tramp who hosts the Gutfeld! pigsty routinely spreads the theme that Michelle Obama is secretly a man, and that Barack Obama is secretly gay.  

As it turns out, that dual theme stretches back at least to 2014, when the increasingly sour Joan Rivers let it crawl out on the land. But even as we've seen the aforementioned cable star pimp that theme about Michelle Obama, we've seen him relentlessly pimp the same theme about Randi Weingarten, and we've seen him and the droogs with whom he surrounds himself burn the time away by asking if Brigitte Macron, the first lady of France, does or does not "have a penis."  

We'll walk you through some history this week, including some history about the way the slimy El Rushbo spoke about first lady Hillary Clinton—and about Chelsea Clinton, when she was 13 years old.  Full disclosure: 

When we let these creeps hold forth (as we constantly do), there are few restraints on where these creeps will go. 

Our guess would be that what's currently bothering them is frequently something other than race. The "masculinism" is all around, and it's a powerful, braindead force.

With these ruminations, we're on our way back to the way Blue American elites reacted to those recent Supreme Court redistricting decisions. But also to questions like these: 

Will we Blues be able to win elections in the future? Also, is it possible that we Blues sometimes react in ways which might make that task much harder?

Tomorrow: Through our inexcusable silence, these are the creeps we've chosen


MONDAY: Charlie Hurt screeched and screamed!

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026

Did he possibly get it right? This morning, we posted some of the lowlights of Saturday morning's three-headed review of the Obama Presidential Center. 

We refer to the screeching, screaming, gong-show behavior of the three co-hosts of the Fox & Friends Weekend program. We're inclined to think that Griff Jenkins knows better. The other two, not so much.    

In fairness, no one was pictured as an ape this day. No one said that Michelle Obama is a man, or that Barack Obama is gay. 

One extremely strange star in the channel's prime time lineup toys with the latter two themes on a semi-regular basis, but no one did that on Fox & Friends Weekend this week.  

On the other hand, the dim-witted messaging flowed like the waters of a mighty stream. As we showed you this morning, eternal teen-ager Charlie Hurt was soon dishing this:

JENKINS: ...President Obama's Presidential Center, which opened up on the South Side of Chicago, has been panned as a bit of an ugly structure.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: It would have been like a death star—

JENKINS: What do you call it? 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I call it the North Korean watchtower. Charlie likes to call it a garbage can. 

HURT: It does, because it looks like a public park, and it's in a public park. So it looks like one of those trash cans in a public park. You just walk in and shove your entire, all your McDonald's garbage, like right through the panel and then you just drop it.  

It looks like a place where you'd shove all your garbage! All in all, it can sometimes seem like it's "garbage in, garbage out" on this tribal messaging program.   

As we noted, some or most architecture critics—not all—have panned the external design of the center's main building. But on Fox & Friends Weekend, when Barack Obama's name is mentioned, the Fox News Channel "conservative insult culture" is likely to take instant hold.   

The new building looks like a trash can, Hurt later said.

Again—no one was called an ape, and no one was called a man! Also, is it possible that Charlie Hurt—screaming and yelling, as you can easily see—was actually noting a questionable part of the Blue American political playbook when he screamed and screeched in the manner shown below?  

JENKINS (6/20/26): You know, it's interesting, by the way—the whole ceremony began with Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser, and she started the whole ceremony by recognizing stolen land.  

Charlie?  

HURT (shouting): Why'd they build it there, then, if it's on stolen land? Give it baaaack! [Briefly inaudible] the building is already there! And you can't tear the building down!

You literally built it on land that you're crying about being stolen! Give it baaaaaack! 

And so on from there. It was quite a "journalistic" performance.

The co-host was unmistakably screeching. It ought to be a national emergency when news clowns behave like that on major "cable news" shows. On the other hand, is it possible that Hurt might be arguably possibly somewhat right? 

We noticed several analysts cringe when Jarrett delivered the "land acknowledgement." They told us that "land acknowledgements" are empty gestures performed in bad faith from which there's only one result:

Every time we Blues deliver a land acknowledgement, these fiery young analysts cried, another ten thousand Trump voters are said to get their wings,

We'll admit that we were surprised to see Jarrfett deliver the acknowledgment. We'd like to see more attention paid to the histories and the present circumstances of indigenous / native / first people tribes. 

That said, these gestures do strike us as blatantly phony, pretty much all the way down. "You can only imagine how these gestures look to Others," one young analyst cried.

The friends seemed to think that the youngster was right! Hurt screeched and screamed as he and Campos-Duffy mocked the gesture.

Could it be that we the Blues sometimes defeat ourselves?


RACE: Is there any possible way...

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026

...we Blues help MAGA win? Whatever you think of the PM's politics, we admire the cut of her jib.   

In what may be his latest attempt at distraction, our sitting president made an odd claim about the Italian PM. Inevitably, his claim sounded condescending, insulting.  

Presumably, no one believed his statement was true, but there he went again! As you can see in this news report, Prime Minister Giorgi Meloni shot back hard (in translation):   

PRIME MINISTER MELONI (6/CC/26): Certain things deserve an immediate response. 

Donald Trump’s statements are completely fabricated / made up. I am frankly stunned / appalled.

I don’t know why the president of the United States behaves this way toward his own allies. It’s not the first time this has happened, after all.   

I don’t know why [he[ behaves this way, the Italian prime minister said. With regret, we're prepared to guess that everybody else does!   

This latest idiotic feud continues to unfold. It began with a weird remark by Trump—perhaps with his latest attempt to create a distraction from the unpleasant news of the world. 

We like the way the PM shot back She even offered this::    

There is one thing he must remember: Italy and I do not / never beg.  

The PM pushed back hard!  Whatever you may think of her politics, we like the cut of her jib!

At any rate, everyone knows why the president behaves the does. In the end, it may track back to cognitive decline—or it may trace back to cognitive decline layered atop decades of untreated medical / mental health disorders.  

Presumably, that's why he behaves the way he does. Presumably, that's why he stages his endless, brain cell-destroying claims, including the recent claim that ABC's Jonathan Karl has been involved in attempts to vandalize the Reflecting Pool:   

Trump Claims ‘Vandalism’ Caused Reflecting Pool Debacle, Accuses ABC Reporter of Trying To Make It Worse 

President Donald Trump is now claiming that the problems with the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool were caused by unidentified vandals.  

The president has taken a personal interest in the renovations and frequently raised the topic during press gaggles. Since the job was completed, the pool has been plagued by algae blooms. This week, visitors to the pool began to notice paint peeling away from the bottom. The algae has given the pool a distinct green hue instead of the intended American flag blue. Some tourists have reportedly been ripping off pieces of the paint to take as souvenirs.

Trump addressed the problems on Friday night in a post on Truth Social. 

[...]   

For good measure, Trump accused ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl of “trying to rip the rubber off of the surface."  

Implausible claims about the alleged vandalism have continued through the weekend, complete with at least one actual arrest by the Park Police. The president's implausible claims about Meloni have also continued, with the typical insults thrown in.  

(Significant) cognitive decline is always a personal tragedy. So is (serious) mental illness. We assume that everyone knows that some such tragedy is possibly at play here—a tragedy which is also quite dangerous.   

With regret, we can't offer any such excuse for the "journalism" we saw performed on Saturday morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, when the program's three co-hosts enjoyed some good solid fun regarding the newly opened Obama Presidential Center.  

Full disclosure! Fox & Friends Weekend is an imitation of life. And so, after praising the sitting president's superb aesthetic eye, the friends started in on the Obama building.   

The mockery went on and on, with the typical insults thrown in. In their first hour on Saturday morning, the friends praised the new color scheme on the new Air Force 1, then transitioned as shown:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (6/20/26): Well, I think [the new Air Force One] looks good. I still like the baby blue. But you know, this looks beautiful, and the waving flag on the back. It's sharp.

JENKINS: It's sharper than President Obama's Presidential Center, which opened up on the South Side of Chicago—

HURT: [Laughter]

JENKINS: —which has been panned as a bit of an ugly structure.

In fact, the building's external appearance has been panned by many, not all, observers. Though never, perhaps, like this

CAMPOS-DUFFY (continuing directly): It would have been like a death star—

JENKINS: What do you call it? 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I call it the North Korean watchtower. Charlie likes to call it a garbage can. 

HURT: It does, because it looks like a public park, and it's in a public park. So it looks like one of those trash cans in a public park. You just walk in and shove your entire, all your McDonald's garbage, like right through the panel and then you just drop it.   

The nimrods were off to a very fast "cable news" start. 

Of the three, Griff Jenkins knows better. Charlie Hurt? Probably not. And Campos-Duffy loathes Obama. Of that there can be little doubt.

Hurt, of course, was simply fellating President Trump, who had initiated the "garbage can / dumpster" imagery with this earlier thoughtful critique:   

Trump Imagines Obama Library Will Be a Giant Dumpster Surrounded By Homeless Tents   

President Donald Trump has a depressing vision for what former President Barack Obama’s new presidential library will morph into.

The president posted an AI-generated image of what he believes Obama’s library will look like in 2036—a giant grey dumpster with a big black bag of trash spilling out of it, surrounded by homeless people and tents. Trump’s post showed the homeless milling around the ugly building with a dreary Chicago skyline in the background.

Trump’s Truth Social post was captioned: “The Barack Hussein Obama Library, in 10 years, when fully matured!”  

And so on from there. Charlie was simply advancing Preferred Presidential Imagery as he kissed the president's asp.   

At any rate, that's the way the trio of journalists started their thoughtful discussion. Their performance went on for roughly four minutes. During that time, as you can see, the trio of friends described the presidential center as:   

This really hideous building (RCD) 
That disgusting building (RCD) 
This monstrosity (RCD)  
A giant trash can (Hurt)  

Driven along by Campos-Duffy, the architectural critics were IN!

Along the way, Campos-Duffy complained, two separate times, about the fact that someone with such bad aesthetic taste as Obama "had the gall" to have "taken jabs" at the more accomplished President Trump during his speech at the opening of the center.   

That said, what jabs had Obama taken at Trump during his 34-minute speech? Eventually, producers played the four alleged jabs you see below. We haven't omitted a word of what Fox viewers were shown:   

PRESIDENT OBAMA (6/20/26): ...in the newly independent United States, there will be no kings or lords, no serfs or subjects, but only citizens....  

...economic disruptions, mass protests, backlash against mass protests, political conflicts that have shaken the very foundation of our democracy...

The good Reverend was under no illusions about the perils and obstacles facing the abolitionist cause...  

...the same spirit that will see America and the world through its present trials.   

There you see the shards of speech, yanked completely out of context, which were offered to Red American viewers as Obama's insolent "jabs" at Trump. Those were the most offensive "jabs" producers could cull from the full-length speech.

In that first excerpt, Obama was talking about the goals of the founders in 1776. The second shard—with the phrase "a terrible pandemic" omitted—was yanked from a longer list of challenges the nation has encountered in the decade since he left office, four years of which occurred under President Biden.

The third alleged jab was a reference to the abolitionist views of Reverend Theodore Parker—back in the 1850s! The fourth shard was so totally ripped from any context that it made little sense as a free-standing statement.  

Poor Campos-Duffy! She was appalled to think that a man like Obama had taken so many jabs at a brilliant aesthete like President Trump!

Lost to memory on this show—in this imitation of human life—was the sitting president's astonishing Truth Social post in which he himself had compared the Obama Center to a garbage can. 

Also forgotten by Campos-Duffy was an earlier jab like this:    

Trump Posts Video Depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as Apes    

Campos-Duffy is paid large sums to disappear moments like that.   

This Fox & Friends Weekend pseudo-discussion rolled on and on, with Hurt supplying the peals of laughter and Campos-Duffy calling the names. This imitation of a news discussion finally came to an end with the sated Campos-Duffy happily saying this:  

CAMPOS-DUFFY: All right. Well, that was fun, you guys! It's just not fun for the people of the South Side who have to wake up every morning and see that thing!

Simply put, the lady can't stop. She's amazingly genial among her own, like this with respect to others.

These are the fruits of our nation's so-called "democratization of media." In this case, these are the fruits of demonically partisan "cable news" broadcasts in which every word is designed to please viewers living in one of our tribal Americas.  

For the record, the trio of friends didn't mention the insult aimed at Michelle Obama right there on the White House lawn the previous Sunday night. 

A UFC fighter, playing the fool, had directed an insulting remark at Mrs. Obama. For the record, versions of that same insult are routinely directed at the former first lady on the Fox News Channel, but no one in Blue America bothers to say a word.   

In this case, the insult was unloosed right on the White House lawn. On this one occasion, the overpaid stars of Blue America somehow managed to stir themselves to respond.   

Maya Wylie is very sharp. She appeared on Deadline: White House last Tuesday, where she joined Nicolle Wallace is discussing what the UFC fighter had said. 

Tomorrow, we're going to show you what Wiley and Wallace said. For today, we've given you a small taste of the evolving world of our failing nation's increasingly clownlike public discourse. 

With that in mind, we restate an important question:   

We've lost two elections to President Trump. There is absolutely no assurance that we'll regain the House this fall (although it may be that we will).

For reasons we cited last week, electoral politics may get even harder in the years to come. 

Tomorrow, we'll look at what Wylie said about the moronic remark the UFC fighter made on the White House lawn. But for today, we'll ask you again:

Is there anything we Blues may be inclined to do which may perhaps be helping to drive this ongoing disaster along?

Tomorrow: What Wiley (and others) said

SATURDAY: It's hard to stomach the kind of behavior...

SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 2026

...we wrote about yesterday morning: It's hard to stomach the kind of behavior we wrote about yesterday morning.   

In contexts like this, we largely avoid the term "misogyny." We're happy to go with "masculinism"—but the mutts they send out to perform on the Fox News Channel behave that way every night of the week.  

Blue America's major orgs never say a word about it. This is the imitation of life we've unmistakably chosen. 

Who's worse? The mutts they send out every night? Or our lauded high-end Blue elites? 


FRIDAY: Delusion is as delusion believes!

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 2026

It's sometimes a medical term: We tip our hats to Jonah Goldberg for his rumination about the sitting president on today's Inside Politics. 

At Mediaite, Jennifer Bahney provides transcript and videotape, along with a bit of background. Here's part of what Goldberg said, with us saving the highlight for last:   

‘So Unbelievably Radioactive’: Jonah Goldberg Slams ‘Delusional’ Trump For Alienating US Allies   

Conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg slammed President Donald Trump on CNN’s Inside Politics for alienating U.S. allies like Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni.

[...]  

“Let’s go back to the context of that interview [with Axios] where he says, ‘We totally defeated Iran militarily. There are no limits to my power,'” Goldberg said. “The fact that he’s coming out of this week with this deal, saying that there are no limits to his power when he was forced to negotiate ending a blockade to open up the Strait of Hormuz is preposterous.”   

Goldberg continued:

"And why was the Strait of Hormuz such a problem? They begged to get allies to come in and help with the minesweeping, because our European allies have better equipment for that kind of stuff. Couldn’t get them to do it. Why couldn’t they get them to do it? Because he threatened to militarily take over Greenland, and made himself so unbelievably radioactive...

"... I think his approval rating in Denmark is like 4%, right? So like, those are limits to his power! We would be a much more powerful country if we had allies that were willing to get our back and help us out. Those are limits. What’s disturbing is he’s so delusional he can’t see the limits to his power, and that’s something that’s going to get him into more mistakes.   

Trump is delusional, Goldberg said—and that can be a colloquial term. That said, we think you should consider this: 

"Delusional" can also be a diagnostic medical term. 

"Delusional disorder" is the name of a related set of "mental disorders," medical conditions which are also described as "mental illnesses." If you click that link and scan the leading authority's overview of that set of disorders, we'll recommend that you click the links for this pair of diagnoses:   

"Grandiose type (megalomania)" and "Persecutory type."   

Let's be clear—the upper-end press corps is never going to consider the possibility that the sitting president is in the grip of a serious mental illness. They're never going to interview (carefully selected) medical specialists who might (or might not) be able to shed some light on his increasingly peculiar behavior.  

Our journalists would rather go down with the ship, at the direction of their news org's paymasters. 

Nearer My God to Thee? As they color inside the lines, our shipmates won't even hum that!


RED REGIONS: He brought some droogs to the White House lawn!

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 2026

One of them shot off his mouth: In the week before the president's birthday bash, we the people didn't seem to be buying. 

We'll let The Hill explain:    

Just 16 percent approve of Trump UFC event at White House: Survey  

A small portion of Americans approve of a UFC fight night event set to play out on the White House’s South Lawn this weekend, according to a new survey.

Just 16 percent of Americans said ​it was appropriate for President Trump to host the event at the White House, the Reuters/Ipsos poll found. Another 46 percent said the opposite, while 38 percent said “neither” or were unsure.   

The latest survey, conducted this month, included 4,531 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

We agree! The word "neither" doesn't seem to make sense in that context, but so it goes when American journalists are forced to traffic in language! 

(To see the question respondents were asked, you can just click here.)

On balance, we the people didn't seem to approve of the president's idea. Given the way last Sunday's event played out, we the people may have actually gotten it right, if only in this one instance.   

It was at that event that a UFC fighter, in a bit of monster inanity worthy of a Fox News program, loudly shouted, for all to hear, a claim about Michelle Obama intended to be insulting. Prominent know-nothing Joe Rogan was holding the mike when he did that.  

("Michelle Obama is a man," this unfortunate fellow screamed.)

On this campus, we weren't exactly all that surprised to learn what that fellow had said. We see similar suggestions made quite routinely on the droog-powered "cable news" program, Gutfeld!. 

On that program, we've often noted, the termagant host routinely suggests that Michelle Obama is a man and Barack Obama is gay.  As Blue America's news orgs keep averting their gaze, this is the trash can we've chosen

At any rate, so it frequently goes on that grisly program as its host, assisted by a shifting array of droog-adjacent guests, undermines the very possibility of the American project.

At least one major international expert has dubbed these players "Unrecognizables." Explaining that designation, he has said he never knew that you could get people to behave on national TV the way the Unrecognizables do, even if you paid them.   

They do behave that way on the Gutfeld! program! Consider what happened on Wednesday evening's edition, where the gaggle of droogs looked like this:   

Gutfeld!: Wednesday, June 17, 2026   
Tyrus: former professional "wrestler"   
Kat Timpf: comedian  
Greg Gutfeld: host 
Jeff Dye: comedian  
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered   

That was the all-star cable news lineup. Consider what happened that evening:  

At the start of the program's second segment, the Unrecognizables watched some tightly edited videotape of Professor Richardson's recent appearance on Jim Acosta's podcast. To see that short bit of edited tape, you can just click here.

For the record, Richardson is a stone-cold major professor. The panelists seemed to have no earthly idea. Just so you'll know, this:   

Heather Cox Richardson

Heather Cox Richardson (born October 8, 1962) is an American historian who works as a professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Richardson has authored seven books on history and politics. In 2019, she started publishing Letters from an American, a nightly newsletter that chronicles current events in the larger context of American history

Born in Chicago in 1962 and raised in Maine, Richardson attended Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire. She received her AB, MA, and PhD from Harvard University, where she studied under the historians David Herbert Donald and William Gienapp.

As a historian, Richardson advocates studying history to learn how to distill complex situations into something easier to understand.  

[...]   

In 2021, Richardson appeared on the Forbes 50 over 50 list and received the Frances Perkins Center Intelligence and Courage Award. In 2022, USA Today recognized her as one of the Women of the Year. In 2023, The Guardian described her as the single most important progressive pundit since Edward P. Morgan from the 1960s. In 2024, the Authors Guild Foundation awarded her the Baldacci Award for Literary Activism for 2024. In November 2024, Richardson was awarded the Kidger Award by the New England History Teachers Association at the NCSS Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. In July 2025, Richardson was named to the Time100 Creators of 2025 for Letters from an American, which appears on Facebook (3.2 million followers) and Substack (2.5 million subscribers).

She prepped at Exeter, moved on to Harvard. According to the leading authority, she advocates "studying history to learn how to distill complex situations into something easier to understand." 

We aren't prepared to say that that formulation is the professor's fault. But the professor is an extremely well-known American historian, a fact which didn't seem to be known by the Gutfeld! gaggle. 

Needless to say, that doesn't mean that everything she ever says will be perfectly clear and will also be perfectly accurate. No one's work is perfect or unassailable, but the work performed on some "cable news" programs tends to constitute an imitation of (human) life.

Full disclosure! In our view, something the professor said to Acosta in the course his podcast was perhaps poorly explained—was in our view hard to follow. Amid the typical clowning by the other panelists, Timpf stated a similar dissatisfaction on the Gutfeld! program this night, in the plainly intelligent way which is virtually unknown to this Fox News Channel program.   

Along with that, the deluge! Inevitably, the panelists slipped into their favorite analytical mode. The lowlife messengers opened their traps and the garbage and swill spilled out. 

We'll let a bloated blowhard start. In a standard manifestation, the bilious fellow wasn't pleased by what he saw when he looked at the still photo of Richardson and Acosta which loomed up to his left.

The big dope didn't like what he saw. Out of his opened mouth, this:  

TYRUS (6/17/26): Idiots like this—who's her makeup artist, Whiteout? 

COMPAGNO: [Unrestrained laughter]

AUDIENCE: [Laughter]

TYRUS: They just say—

TIMPF: It's always the whitest lady ever! It's always the whitest lady ever. The whitest lady evvv-er.

TYRUS: She really dressed up for the occasion. She's in a velour bathrobe!   

This is the way the game is played on this very dumb messaging show. 

For the record, the high-end fashion critic Tyrus was dressed in an oversized sweatshirt this day, with his cap on backwards. For those who care about such matters, Timpf is quite white-skinned herself—but this is the way the game is played on this very dumb primetime "news" show. 

We don't have the slightest idea what Timpf's repeated remark was supposed to convey. Compagno merely continued to laugh and laugh, as she typically does when this program's appearance-based insult culture starts to fly around.

There followed a gross bit of misdirection involving Tyrus and Gutfeld. At some point, we'll describe that exchange.  

Soon, though, the panelists were back in their zone.  It came time for the frequently inarticulate Compagno to deride the professor's appearance as she referred to the comment which had been clipped from the Acosta podcast: 

GUTFELD: Emily?  

COMPAGNO: Well, no one is more credible to talk about lynching than Kathy Bates and Jim Acosta together...

Formerly "the whitest lady ever," Richardson was now derided as Kathy Bates. Here's a chunk of the statement which followed. We've transcribed it the best we can:

COMPAGNO: Well, no one is more credible to talk about lynching than Kathy Bates and Jim Acosta together! Like those—

We are supposed to understand that from their perspective? From what— I can't, with the condescension coming from the left constantly, ensuring that they are speaking for the same group of people, that she is now sucking the wind out of their voices. Because she is speaking on air, someone actually from that community can't and we're supposed to take her word for it as she purports to speaks for them.   

We've transcribed that as best we can. In fact, though, Richardson had made a reference to lynching in the short comment the Gutfeld! producers had clipped.  Given that fact, Compagno seemed to be saying this:

She seemed to be saying that Richardson was purporting to speak for Black people in the brief comment in question, and that she was keeping a Black person from going on the air when she appeared with Acosta.   

That's the best we can manage concerning what "Kathy Bates" had supposedly been doing in the very short clip which had been aired. Still steaming, the perpetually furious Compagno offered this: 

COMPAGNO (continuing directly): And this is what I hate the most. Two things:   

Number 1, that people ascribe everything, on the left, with that fighter's comments about Michelle Obama, automatically to Donald Trump. They come down with cancer, with a cold, they get hit by a car, and somehow they will equate it back to—

That was that person's mouth. That wasn't Donald Trump! And secondly, everyone was saying on the left that somehow the celebration, the UFC fight, was beneath the office. 

This was in interviews. Beneath the office, like shoving a cigar into an intern's shirt wasn't?   

Compagno continued from there, furiously reciting three (or four) additional Democratic horribles, not excluding President Biden's use of an autopen. But first, she angrily traveled thirty years back, returning us to President Clinton and his still-famous cigar.  

It's an action for which Clinton has been widely reviled right up the present day. Few presidents have ever been so thoroughly reviled for some set of personal behaviors.

In her fury, Compagno seemed to suggest that no other president could ever be criticized for anything else, given the fact that President Clinton had once behaved that way. The logic tends to run that way on this godforsaken corporate messaging program.

Beyond that, though, was it true? Was it true that people "on the left" had ascribed the fighter's insulting remark about Michelle Obama to President Trump?   

Surely, someone had done something like that. There are 340 million people in the country, and Gutfeld!'s producers spend their waking hours search for the person "on the left" who has made the least insightful remark on the given day.

That said, "Kathy Bates" hadn't been shown doing ascribing the fighter's remark to Trump, and no other example had been offered. We were now in a post-logical Lala Land, where this barely recognizable program resides.

In fairness to Compagno, though, would the great and kindly President Trump ever engage in conduct like that? Would he ever imaginably aim an insult at a former first lady?

On Gutfeld!, no—he never would, and he never has! The program's Red American audience will never hear a screamer like Compagno mention a moment like this:   

Trump's racist post about Obamas is deleted after backlash...   

President Donald Trump's social media post featuring former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, as primates in a jungle was deleted after a backlash from both Republicans and Democrats who criticized the video as racist.

The Republican president's Thursday night post was deleted Friday and blamed on a staffer after widespread backlash, from civil rights leaders to veteran Republican senators, for its treatment of the nation's first Black president and first lady. The deletion, a rare admission of a misstep by the White House, came hours after press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed "fake outrage" over the post. After calls for its removal for being racist—including by Republicans—the White House said a staffer had posted the video erroneously and it had been taken down.   

President Trump would never say that Michelle Obama was a man— but he did picture her as an ape! Or rather, it turned out that the staffer had done it, after an extremely high-profile staffer had gone out and said that it was just good clean fun to portray the former first lady that way.  

Obviously, President Trump hadn't known about that staffer's blunder either! The two staffers let him down!

This is going very long. For today, we're going to stop, though first we'll mention this:

In truth, we think the Gutfeld! panelists were justified this night in portraying that one thing Richardson said to Acosta as "a stretch."  

We've puzzled over the professor's fuller statement. (See minutes 12-16 on the Acosta tape,) Pending further explanation, we'd also be inclined to call it a stretch, or something of that sort. 

And yes, the professor's statement did involve "lynching"—and as Timpf quite correctly said, lynching was, and lynching remains, a profoundly serious topic.   

We've never seen Timpf get anything right in the way she eventually did this night. But before she got part of this topic right, she played the standard Gutfeld! game, joining the world-class blowhard Tyrus in mocking the professor's appearance.   

Later, the professor was turned into Kathy Bates as Compagno went on an extended tear about matters which had nothing to do with what the professor had said.

Within the American context, lynching takes us directly to race, and race is profoundly important. Absent further explanation, we think the professor may have moved a bit too quickly at one point when she spoke with Acosta that day.  

We wouldn't call that the end of the world, but it's something we Blues do much too routinely. One day later, Maya Wiley went on Deadline: White House and she went straight to "racist" and "bigotry" when she discussed what the UFC droog had said.

Because we watch the Gutfeld! show, we thought she too was moving too quickly. You see, we've seen Gutfeld play this moronic "she's a man" game with women other than Michelle Obama—with well-known women who are white.

We thought that Wiley, who's very sharp, had moved to race too quickly. 

There's much, much more to be said about this general Blue American impulse. That includes the way Blue American agitprop instantly turned to "Jim Crow 2.0" in the wake of two recent Supreme Court decisions.

We think those statements were extremely unwise. Every time we Blues behave that way, we'll guess that thousands of wavering MAGA voters decide to hang into their wings.

Still coming: Jim Crow 2.0? There's much, much more to be said...


THURSDAY: Dare to struggle, dare to win?

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026

Are we sharp enough to do that? We were pleased to see Senator Wicker offer his opinion on the supposed Iran resolution.   

For the record, that's Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. At Mediaite, Isaac Schorr provides an overview concerning what he said:   

Top Republican Slams Trump Iran Agreement: $300 Billion Makes Obama Deal ‘Look Like a Pittance’   

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) blasted the memorandum of understanding President Donald Trump has struck with the Iranian regime in a scathing statement issued on Thursday.

“Since day one, I have supported President Trump’s efforts to end Iran’s 47-year threat to the United States and our partners. I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals,” began Wicker, who continued:

"Specifically, the $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran—though not funded by U.S. taxpayers—would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison."   

The Deep South solon continued from there. Let it be said that he didn't feel the need to refer to Barack Hussein Obama, as the sitting president, who's mentally ill, never fails to do.    

We've noticed Senator Wicker's public sanity during these months of the mullahs. His congressional career has proceeded like this:   

As we recently noted, Wicker entered the House of Representatives during the Republican sweep of November 1994—the landslide which created GOP control of the House for the first time in forty years. Since that time, the Democrats have never maintained control of the House for more than two consecutive terms.    

As we also recently mentioned, five of that year's new Republican congressmen went to win seats in the Senate (Brownback, Burr, Chambliss, Graham, Wicker). Joe Scarborough even found his way into the House that year!

Senator Wicker is in his third term, but it's the future status of the House which we're thinking about today. Our first question would be this:   

After the wave of future redistricting gets done, will Democrats ever be able to win House seats in states like Alabama and Mississippi?   

There's another question we're wondering about. It's a bit of a second cousin:

After the wave of future redistricting gets done, will Democrats ever be able to win control of the House?

That may seem like a silly question. Unfortunately, we're gloomily thinking of what the very experienced Tom Edsall wrote in the New York Times back in March, before the second wave of mid-census redistricting got started.

Here's part of his lengthy guest essay:

The Democrats’ Looming 2032 Cliff

The Democratic Party’s short-term prospects look great. The party’s long-term prospects look dismal.

[...]

[T]he 2030 census will inflict two brutal body blows to the Democratic Party by putting the party in a significantly worse position in the contest to control the House and the presidential battle to win 270 votes in the Electoral College.

According to current estimates based on population trends, Republican states will gain and Democratic states will lose six to 12 House seats [due to the 2030 census] and, with them, the same number of Electoral College votes.

[...]

Not only does this make it much harder to retain or win control of the House, it also means that a Democratic presidential candidate in 2032 could sweep the Midwest battleground states and still lose the election.  

It gets much worse as Edsall reports the low regard in which respondents in various surveys hold the Democratic Party. But aside from control of the House, just consider what Edsall said about future control of the White House:   

A Democratic presidential candidate in 2032 could sweep the Midwest battleground states and still lose the election!

As far as we know, that's a standard assessment. 

Assuming the madness with the current president actually comes to an actual end, are population trends moving future electoral politics away from the Democratic Party? 

Also this:   

In the short but also in the longer run, are there any things we Blues are doing which make it harder to win elections as a general matter?    

Ever since 1992, newly created House districts which were majority Black have sent Democrats to the House from various Southern states. Given recent Supreme Court decisions, it looks like those majority Black / Majority Democrat districts may not be long for this world.  

Regarding future control of the House, Dems will likely be losing seats as those districts are remapped. After that, the census will almost surely make matters worse. 

Is there a way to emerge from this doom scenario? Is there some way the Democrats can dare to struggle, dare to win? Even in the Deep South state from which Senator Wicker's scathing takedown of President Trump has emerged?  

We'll continue to ponder such questions as we consider the history of those Deep South Democratic seats—as we consider the fascinating history of subsection (b) of Section 2 of the important Voting Rights Act.

Dare to struggle, dare to win? Are we sharp enough to do that?   

Roger Wicker hasn't been crazy this year. Is there any way a Democrat, white or Black, could win a House seat down there?   

It would take a lot of smarts, a lot of skill. Is there any way we Blues could find a way to do something like that?

Tomorrow: What Maya Wiley said


TIME PASSAGES: Cable creep longs to live in the past!

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026

Mofo just can't stop: It was repeatedly said by the ancients:   

Once you've lost Brian Kilmeade, you've lost the Fox News Channel!

Kilmeade is "co-host for life" of the weekday Fox & Friends program. In fairness, he has a good sense of humor. He has held that position since the program debuted in February 1998. 

As of yesterday morning, Kilmeade had already walked the plank regarding the president's resolution of the Iran debacle. "It makes absolutely no sense," he said at one point—and over the following 24 hours, similar views were expressed by a wide array of Fox News Channel personnel.  

That said, the channel's top messengers held firm in their belief that the president has fashioned a fabulous deal (Jesse Watters, on Jesse Watters Primetime), or that there's much, much more which hasn't yet been disclosed about the actual deal (Sean Hannity, on Hannity). 

So those messengers said. But because we can't stop being amazed by what is churned by this "cable news" channel, we thought you should see what millions of Americans saw and heard at the start of last night's Gutfeld! program.

In fairness, let's be fair! The Gutfeld! program is taped in the late afternoon. For that reason, we'll excuse the fact that this "cable news" program featured zero discussion last night of the memorandum of understanding regarding the war with Iran.  

Last night, the topic just never came up! That said, this program repeatedly avoids discussion of major issues, turning instead to inane agitprop. 

It will be interesting to see what's said on this astounding program tonight about the dismount from Iran. For today, we merely want to show you what was said at the very start of last evening's show. 

In our view, an anthropology lesson is currently being made available to all who are willing to see—a lesson about the actual nature of us the (imperfect) humans. This lesson is being taught as the "democratization of media" has, for better or worse, afforded large platforms to types of people who would never have held such positions of influence at any time in the past.   

Greg Gutfeld is one such person. For better or worse, he is the second most-watched person in cable news, behind only the aforementioned Watters, with whom he co-hosts The Five.   

As usual, Gutfeld started last night's Gutfeld! program with roughly two minutes of jokes. These jokes are typically designed to drive his channel's corporate agitprop. 

Last night, his first joke concerned a college student who has apparently committed a criminal act. Remarkably, that first joke went like this:    

GUTFELD (6/17/26): In Chicago, an Asian college student has admitted to burning a cross to protest Donald Trump...

The student was arrested after investigators were suspicious when he initially blamed the Kru Krux Kran. 

The "Kru Krux Kran"—hilarious! In a remarkable time warp, we were returned to the days when people of Asian ancestry were routinely mocked by nitwits like Gutfeld for their imagined "Charlie Chan" accents.  

It was a classic time passage! In such ways, for unknown reasons, Gutfeld (and his panelists) frequently seem to be striving to Make America Profoundly Dimwitted Again.   

At any rate, that was the fellow's first joke. He then turned directly to this:  

GUTFELD: JD Vance has been on a media tour promoting his book about his conversion to Catholicism. and last year he said he hopes his Hindu wife, Usha, converts to Christianity.  

And now there is hope. Once she saw her husband on The View, she no longer believes cows are sacred.  

PHOTO; Vance with the women of The View  

AUDIENCE: [Laughter, sustained applause]   

There the cable star went again! He just can't seem to quit the desire to fulfill his own strange needs by engaging in this practice. 

For the record, it was the second straight night! Here he was, on Tuesday night, walking that same sad beat: 

GUTFELD (6/16/26): Farmers are implementing A.I. to shoot lasers at weeds while leaving vital produce alone. 

They are also using A.I.-powered robotic systems to milk cows, which is already striking fear in the hosts at The View.   

PHOTO: The women of The View   

AUDIENCE: [Laughter, applause]

Once again, they're just a collection of cows! He can't seem to quit this practice, which his audience plainly loves. 

We think this is pitiful, sad. Meanwhile, no major news org in Blue America is willing to report the presence of this highly unusual behavior on a major "cable news" program—on a cable news show whose nightly audience is more than twice as large as MS NOW's nightly primetime programs.  

Something drives this strange little man to engage in this ritual denigration of women. He does it on a regular basis as Kat Timpf sits and watches. 

In this puzzling profile of Timpf, the New York Times somehow managed to fashion her as some sort of misunderstood feminist. Last night, she was joined in her silence by Emily Compagno as the program's host engaged in this ritual denigration.  

For whatever reason, Gutfeld seems to want to take us back to an earlier time and place. Presumably, his endless denigrations of women are part of the burgeoning "masculinism" which Helen Lewis described at length in this recent essay for the Atlantic. 

Title: "The Men Who Want Women to Be Quiet." Gutfeld relentlessly works this beat, helped by the blowhard Tyrus. 

Taking our lead from Mister T, we've suggested that you should pity the fellows who can't break out of this embarrassing box. We assume that some sort of unfortunate chemical imbalance may make it harder for them to move beyond the world of male supremacy.

That said, the anthropology lessons are everywhere as our flailing, divided nation slides toward the sea. We raise again an important question as the frightening midterm elections draw near:   

What might those of us in Blue America possibly be doing, at this dangerous time, to hasten our tribal and national demise?   

Gutfeld wandered into a distant past last night with his pitiful Charley Chan joke, but also with his longing to disparage women in the dumbest ways possible. As a point of fairness, we'll agree to ask this:

Are we Blues also stuck in the past? Are we Blues stuck in the past in a way which may make it harder for Democrats to win elections?

Tomorrow, as we make our way back to the districting wars, we'll suggest that an error may have been made, this very week, concerning the insult that extremely loud UFC fighter directed at Michelle Obama. This claim will take us to things which were said by decent people on Tuesday's Deadline: White House. 

President Trump loves to talk about his ballroom. We love discussing the conceptual confusion which can arise "when language goes on holiday."   

In our view, murky new language came into being in 1982. In our view, that helps explain why states were told that they had to create majority Black congressional district, but now have been told that they mustn't.   

Along the way, the GOP consolidated its political hold on the South. This is a long and winding conceptual tale. In the present day, has it left us doing things which help MAGA prevail?

Next week, we'll return to the Voting Rights Act—to the new language which came into being in the summer of 82.  Tomorrow, though, we'll question an instant reaction to last weekend's pathetic insult.

Are we Blues defeating ourselves? The question lurks in all of this, and the answer may sometimes be yes!

Tomorrow: Maya Wylie's assessment


WEDNESDAY: 72 percent of Republicans...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2026

...said Cali's elections were rigged: Is it just our own (imperfect) first impression? Or have the sitting president's rambling statements at the G-7 today again suggested the possibility of an ongoing cognitive decline?   

That would be a dangerous state of affairs, especially in a nation whose mainstream press seems disinclined to report or discuss such possibilities. 

At this report from Mediaite, you can see MS NOW pull away from live coverage of “a rambling and incoherent president of the United States attempting to take a victory lap over his page-and-a-half Iran agreement.” Other reports at Mediaite include what seem to be peculiar presidential remarks.

As we await the chance to review the president's statements, we thought we'd cite some fascinating data from the new Economist / YouGov survey.  

As we noted this morning, this survey suggests the possibility that Republicans may be gaining ground on Democrats as we look ahead to November's race for control of the House. Deep in the voluminous data the survey contains, we come upon a deeply instructive fact about the harm a dishonest or delusional president can create. 

Sad! According to the survey, 30% of respondents who are registered voters answered this question in the affirmative: 

 Question 42: Do you think the 2020 presidential election was "rigged?"   

Sad! Among respondents who are registered voters, 30% said yes. An addition 14% said they weren't sure.  

Among the subgroups, it gets much worse. Fifty percent of Republicans said they believe the election was rigged. The number rose to 64% among "MAGA supporters."   

We don't think we've ever seen a survey ask that question! In our view, those data teach a sobering anthropology lesson about us, "the rational animals."  

The survey included a somewhat similar question about last week's California elections. That question went like this: 

Question 43: President Trump has claimed this week that the primary elections in California are being rigged. Which of the following comes closest to your view:   

Trump has concrete evidence to back up his claims of the election being rigged.   

Trump is just trying to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the election.  

Seventy-two percent of Republicans said they think he does have concrete evidence. Only 3% of Democrats joined them in that view.


MAPS OF OUR MINDS: On the latest YouGov poll...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2026

...Dems are just two points ahead: On June 29, 1982, new language entered the world. 

Some of this language was perhaps a bit murky. Language may have "gone on holiday," As language will sometimes do.  

Briefly, a laborious review:

The new language to which we refer included subsection (b), an addition to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. At the risk of losing customers—"Where I come from, we only talk so long"—we present that new language again:

SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.

a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b

(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

Part (b) was the new language. Some of that language is still a bit murky, even today, though that fact may be hard for us the people to spot.

Some of that language was a bit murky. That said, the House passed this addition to the VRA by a 389–24 margin. The Senate passed it by an 85–8 vote.  For a fuller account, click here.

There is no doubt that subsection (b) changed the face of congressional politics. In the redistricting which followed the 1990 census, this new provision led to the creation of majority Black districts in various Southern states. This added to the number of Black members of the House of Representatives.  

That said:   

Back on May 10, the New York Times' Carl Hulse answered a fairly obvious question about the creation of those new districts. That question would be this:   

Why did the GOP support the creation of those new districts? 

Given voting patterns of the day, these new districts sent Democratic members to the House, as everyone knew they would. So why did the GOP support the creation of those majority Black / majority Democrat districts? 

Why did the GOP do that? As we noted in Friday's report, here's the way Hulse explained it:

CONGRESSIONAL MEMO 
How Minority Districts Fueled the G.O.P.’s Southern Ascendancy in Congress 

[...]  

In the late 1980s, Republicans had been deep in the House minority for nearly 40 years. But growing dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party had begun moving white Southern conservatives into the Republican ranks, as illustrated by high-profile party switches in Washington. Then the redistricting initiated under a series of court decisions aimed at fostering more minority representation provided yet another opening that might have seemed counterintuitive at first glance.

Architects of the [new congressional] maps realized that if they could maximize Black and Hispanic representation in the new districts, they would simultaneously dilute Democratic strength in surrounding jurisdictions where coalitions of white and Black voters had elected white Democrats for decades. The shift would ultimately create dozens of openings for Republican candidates in what had formerly been known as Democrats’ “Solid South.”   

As far as we know, this is fairly standard history. In the Southern states which were fitfully switching toward Republican control at that time, creation of the majority Black districts helped Republicans pick up seats in neighboring congressional districts. 

Today, Hulse further says, the transition among white Southerners from D to R is complete. For that reason, Hulse says, the GOP is now moving to eliminate the (frequently gerrymandered) majority Black districts in various Southern states, believing that the party could now win every House seat in those Southern states.   

As far as we know, Hulse's history is fairly standard. If memory serves, the partisan tradeoffs in question were openly discussed in real time, with North Carolina's crazily shaped District 12 serving as the poster child for such discussions. 

District 12 was in the news! The leading authority on the district describes it as it existed at that time:  

North Carolina's 12th congressional district

[...]

The district was re-established after the 1990 United States census, when North Carolina gained a House seat due to an increase in population. It was drawn in 1992 as one of two minority-majority districts [in North Carolina], designed to give African-American voters (who comprised 22% of the state's population at the time) the chance to elect a representative of their choice; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibited the dilution of voting power of minorities by distributing them among districts so that they could never elect candidates of their choice.

In its original configuration, the district had a 64 percent African-American majority in population. The district boundaries, stretching from Gastonia to Durham, were so narrow at some points that it was no wider than a highway lane. It followed Interstate 85 almost exactly. One state legislator famously remarked, after seeing the district map, "If you drove down the interstate with both car doors open, you'd kill most of the people in the district."  

The nutty shape of this new district made it a press corps favorite. Starting in November 1992, Rep. Mel Watt was elected eleven times from this district, which was heavily majority Black, and heavily Democratic.

Rep. Watt repeatedly won by very large margins in a district which had been designed to pull Democratic voters out of its several neighboring districts. The district starred in several court cases as the judiciary struggled to find the proper way to interpret and apply subsection (b) of the Voting Rights Act.

At any rate, the transition of the white South from solidly D to solidly R has helped create the modern world in which the GOP holds a slender majority in the House. The last-minute elimination of majority Black districts in certain Southern states may help the GOP retain that control this November.

Can Democrats regain the House this fall? Yes, they certainly can! That said, the analysts groaned yesterday at the numbers presented in this report by Mediaite:

SHOCK POLL: GOP Closing the Gap With Democrats in Latest Midterm Poll   

A new survey from The Economist and YouGov indicates that Republicans are closing the gap with Democrats ahead of this November’s midterm elections.

History would suggest that the latter boasts a considerable advantage over the former as...incumbent parties tend to struggle in the midterms. Previous incarnations of the Economist/YouGov poll backed up that theory. 

One survey from February found that Democrats boasted a seven-point lead over Republicans on the “generic ballot” question, “If the elections for U.S. Congress were being held today, who would you vote for in the district where you live?” Another from May suggested that Democrats’ lead had slipped to five points.

But in this latest poll of 1,549 American adults (1,402 of which were registered voters conducted between June 13 and 15, Republicans trailed Democrats by just three points (39%-36%) among the former, larger group and two points (46%-44%) among the latter, smaller one.   

Let's restate that final paragraph in English:  

On this Economist/YouGov poll, Democrats are holding only a two-point lead among registered voters on this version of the "generic ballot" question: 

If the elections for U.S. Congress were being held today, who would you vote for in the district where you live?

The Democratic Party's lead on that question is down to just two points! Given the madness of Republican governance, how is that even possible?

Yes, it's only one poll. There's no reason to assume that this particular survey's results are perfectly accurate.   

It's also true that there's no way to know what will happen between now and November. But especially given the way the mid-census redistricting wars seem to be shaking out, there is currently zero guarantee that the Democrats will regain the House this fall.

The Republican president continues to engage in highly erratic conduct. The Republican Congress has continued to support his erratic conduct pretty much right down the line.

Admittedly, the price of eggs is down—but the price of gas has been way up! Given those facts, why isn't the Democratic Party seeming to stage a "blue wave" runaway on these generic ballot questions?  

What's holding the Democrats back? Tomorrow, we'll return to the insult aimed at Michelle Obama to offer one possible type of answer. 

We'll return to the way that same insult is frequently churned by the folk who perform the corporate messaging for the rancid Fox News Channel. Most strikingly, we'll look at the way this insult was interpreted on yesterday's Deadline: White House. 

Eventually, we'll find our way back to the murky language which emerged in 1982—and yes, these questions are related. In the immediate present, though, they lead us onward to this question:

In what ways might we, the Blues, perhaps be defeating ourselves?

Tomorrow: As heard on Deadline: White House


TUESDAY: Sitting president abandoned by allies!

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2026

But also, a furious fellow explains: It's stunning to see the extent to which President Trump has been abandoned by Murdoch World. 

We refer to the way his deal-which-isn't-a-deal has been trashed by the Wall Street Journal, by the New York Post, and by a wide range of Fox News Channel commentators. 

What makes it "a deal-which-isn't-a-deal?" There's nothing deep about the answer, but the editorial board at the New York Post explained in a pithy way:   

The still-mysterious Iran deal leaves a LOT of work undone—at best   

Aside from the vast damage the war did to Iran’s military assets and the deaths of so many of the ruling cabal, this Memorandum of Understanding seems to leave things right back where they were before the bombs started dropping.

That is: Tehran hasn’t actually agreed to give up its nuclear program or its support of terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas—but only to talk about it all some more.

In our view, nicely rendered! With respect to the "deal" which isn't really any such thing, Iran hasn't agreed to do the things the president wants it to do. Iran has only agreed to talk about it some more! 

The editors call this a "deal" in their headline. We'd stick to the bureaucratic term, "memorandum of understanding," and we'd make a point of leaving the description at that. 

That said, the editors aren't the only residents of Murdoch World who are walking away from the president's triumphant claim of a wonderful deal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board follows suit in an editorial which carries this dual headline: 

Trump Stages an Iran Retreat
The regime gets financial relief to reopen Hormuz and hold more nuclear talks.  

"[T]here’s no denying that Mr. Trump is retreating from his main goals as political pressure has built at home and finishing the job requires greater military risk," the unhappy Journal board says. 

Meanwhile, Mediaite spills with reports about Fox News personnel taking a walk away from the new arrangement. We'll start with a link to Mediaite's report about the New York Post editorial, then link you to some reports about blowback from inside the Fox News Channel:

‘When Does the World Get to See It?’ The New York Post Calls Out Trump Over ‘Mystery Deal’ 
(for full report, click here)
Retired General [Jack Keane] Shreds Trump’s Iran Concessions on Fox News...
(for full report, click here)
Fox’s Ben Domenech Shreds Trump’s Iran Deal—Appears to Brand JD Vance ‘Hillbilly Obama’...
(for full report, click here)
....Fox’s Andy McCarthy Goes Scorched Earth on ‘Neville Trump’ Over ‘Laughable’ Iran Deal 
(for full report, click here)
...Fox’s Dana Perino Calls Out Trump White House for Keeping Iran Deal Details Under Wraps
(for full report, click here)

That is correct! Yesterday, the president was even challenged at substantial length on The Five. Dana Perino did so right at the start of the show, in a lengthy demurral.   

It was surprising to see Perino depart from the expected messaging norm in that extended way. Meanwhile, here's one thing which didn't happen in the second segment of yesterday show:

None of the program's four pro-MAGA co-hosts managed to say that UFC fighter Josh Hokit shouldn't have insulted Michelle Obama at last Saturday night's White House event.  

None of them managed to say that! As we noted this morning, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov directly questioned Greg Gutfeld:   

“Why can’t you just say that the guy should never have said that Michelle Obama is a man?" 

It wouldn't be hard to agree that Hokit shouldn't have said that. But Gutfeld went on an extended, histrionic rant in which he explained his increasingly peculiar "cable news" agitprop messaging style.   

We think you ought to watch his agitated rant. 

Below, headline included, you see the start of Sarah Rumpf's report for Mediaite, where video is included. We then include Rumpf's quotation of a key part of what Gutfeld said: 

Fox’s Greg Gutfeld Defends UFC Fighter Who Called Michelle Obama a Man: ‘We Enjoy It When You’re Upset’

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld defended comments by UFC fighter Josh Hokit in which he called former First Lady Michelle Obama a man by downplaying it as the fighter just being a “troll,” and adding that the right enjoyed it when the left was “upset.”  

[...]

"Hell, I seem to remember, not too long ago, how often I heard that Melania Trump was an escort—and from a lot of people who are now “oh, oh, oh!” huffing and huffing. People who say that a Black kid who stabs a White kid, that was just him defending himself. People faking Charlie Kirk getting stabbed in the neck, thinking it’s funny. People hoping for another Luigi Mangioni to take out Elon Musk or perhaps Trump or maybe both!

"See, we don’t have to listen. In fact, we enjoy it when you’re upset.

"That guy is a troll. He showed up at the weigh-in pretending he was drunk and was throwing up applesauce as a fake pretense because he was pretending he was scared. That’s called a troll. We get it. Not our fault if you don’t. He knows it’s going to upset you. He’s a troll! You give a mic to a troll?"

We don't have to listen to you libs any more! Gutfeld has been saying this, over and over, in the past few months. 

It's all a game of owning you libs! We enjoy it when we say things that make you libs get upset!

He's been saying this sort of thing for moths. Yesterday, he ranted it hard. This is being broadcast to audiences which are triple the size of nightly MS NOW audiences.   

This is the world of a type of unstated secession. Later, on the Gutfeld! show, this angry fellow returned to the joy of insulting Michelle Obama himself.

A large modern nation can't expect to function successfully this way. Luckily, if you read the New York Times or the Atlantic, you will never have to know that this insult-driven cultural secession is actually going on!

This 61-yeatr-old angry child loves to feed this gruel to his viewers. CEO Scott tells him to do it, pays him nine million per year!


REGIONS OF THE MIND: Tarlov and Gutfeld and Compagno oh my!

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2026

But also, subsection (b) of the Voting Rights Act: In fairness, American incoherence is just part of a much larger human story. 

Here in America, one current snowstorm of incoherence got its start in 1982, when the United States Congress agreed, by overwhelming margins, to add some murky language to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

At that time, the Congress added subsection (b) to Section 2 of that important piece of legislation. 

Borrowing from the later Wittgenstein, had "language gone on holiday" in that addition to the Voting Rights Act? To a large extent, we're going to say that it pretty much had. You can peruse subsection (b) below

SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.

a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of theright of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b

(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

To be clear, it was subsection (b) which was added in 1982, in part for reasons which Carl Hulse described last month in the New York Times. 

Did language "go on holiday" in that new part of the Voting Rights Act? We're going to say that it did! Even today, forty-four years later, it's virtually impossible to untangle the balls of confusion which have come into being in the wake of the vacation taken by clear, concise language within that jumble of words. 

Somewhat oddly, there's one declaration in subsection (b) which seems to be fairly straightforward. It comes at the very end of this addition to the original VRA:

[N]othing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 

Paraphrasing slightly, this new subsection said that members of a protected class are not guaranteed "proportional representation" in (for example) the House of Representatives. You may think that was a lousy provision but, in fairly straightforward language, that's what this new subsection said.

You may think that's a lousy provision but there it sits, in fairly straightforward language, right there in the VRA. Oddly, the recent Supreme Court cases which have generated anger and controversy seem to involve claims by plaintiffs who were demanding proportional representation under terms of the Voting Rights Act.  

The Act doesn't guarantee such representation. To appearances, plaintiffs seemed to be seeking it all the same

Proportional representation might seem to be fair. In principle, it would seem that it plainly would be fair," whatever objections might arise with respect to some such legal requirements. That said, subsection (b) seems to say that there is no right to some such outcome on the part of the "protected classes" under consideration. 

If no such outcome is guaranteed, is the active pursuit of some such outcome constitutionally permissible? It seems that's a question the Court was batting around in its recent decisions.   

At any rate, a ball of confusion was set into motion when Congress passed that new subsection. According to Hulse's account, the Republican Party supported that new subsection for a grimly political reason:   

According to Hulse's account in the New York Times, the GOP wanted to cram Black voters into majority Black districts in the hope that this would help them win congressional seats in adjacent districts. According to Hulse, this was part of the GOP's attempt to win control of the solid South, a region which was slowly moving from solidly D to solidly R at the time in question.

That last part of subsection (b) seems to be reasonably straightforward. Did language go on holiday in other parts of that new subsection? Also, has language been on holiday in the decades of legal and journalistic writing which have followed the creation of that subsection?

We're inclined to say that the answer is yes—that an era of American incoherence has been added to the much longer story of human incoherence.

It's sad but plainly it's true. As a species, we the humans simply aren't built for this kind of analysis. That said, we'll continue to try to show you what we mean when we say that "language has gone on holiday" with respect to subsection (b) of the Voting Rights Act.   

Meanwhile, a larger chasm in understanding opened up yesterday, first on The Five, then five hours later on Gutfeld! Believe it or not, this was one of Greg Gutfeld's handful of opening jokes on his eponymous "cable news" program:

GUTFELD (6/15/26): At Sunday night's Freedom 250, fighter Josh Hokit ended his post-fight speech by yelling, "Michelle Obama is a man!"

AUDIENCE: Applause 

GUTFELD [scolding audience]: Terrible! Ohhhhh! Don't clap! Don't clap! 

GUTFELD: Barack Obama angrily responded, "Leave him out of it!"  

AUDIENCE: Laughter   

GUTFELD [feigning bewilderment]: I must have misread that.    

He delivered the joke at 10:01. While hiding behind several beards, the little guy pretended that the former president had referred to his wife as "him." 

You can see the angry fellow perform this function simply by clicking here. It's as we've told you again and again: "Michelle is a man" and "Barack is gay" are two of this angry nut-ball's favorite themes. 

He pushes a large assortment of such themes at his large Red American audience. He's paid $9 million by the corporation to perform this messaging function.

It's as we've told you again and again. Until he's told to stop by his corporate owners, this little guy isn't going to quit. And whatever you may think about the current state of the nation, therein lies a major societal problem.

Earlier yesterday, on The Five, Jessica Tarlov had explicitly raised a perfectly sensible question. Specifically addressing Gutfeld himself, this is what she said:   

“Why can’t you just say that the guy should never have said that Michelle Obama is a man?"   

Why can't you simply say it, she asked. It was a perfectly obvious question.

Gutfeld followed with an angry, multifaceted response in which he histrionically defended his refusal to reject Hokit's insulting remark. After that, Emily Compagno offered one of her hopelessly garbed orations in which she too seemed to refuse to say that Hokit shouldn't have said it.

Discussions of the Voting Rights Act come from the higher end of American public discourse. The intellectual squalor frequently driving the Fox News Channel comes from a whole different realm.

That said, even on its higher end, our public discourse is so unskilled that there is no real chance that anyone could ever untangle the endless confusions surrounding the recent Supreme Court decisions about the Voting Rights Act. 

Meanwhile, the tribal anger of players like Gutfeld and the Compagno reflect a silent secession from the existing American project. Whatever you think of some such secession, a secession like that can't be easily brokered, especially when our major mainstream Blue American orgs refuse to report or discuss the fact of this rebellion.

Over at Mediaite, Sarah Rumpf has reported what Gutfeld said on The Five, with videotape included. Rumph has thereby provided a valuable service.

True to the rules which seem to obtain at that site, no one at Mediaite has reported what Gutfed did, five hours later, on his eponymous primetime show. Also, Rumpf failed to record the garbled non-discussion discussion from the perpetually garbled Compagno. What if they staged a civil war and the press corps refused to come?

We'll continue to discuss each of these rolling events, the sacred and the profane. For the record, we humans aren't built for this line of work, and that isn't going to change.