SATURDAY: The president spoke for over an hour!

SATURDAY, JULY 25, 2026

A politics of meaning: Did the president really speak for over an hour?

Yes, he actually did! Beyond that, also this:   

We've told you, quite a few times, that (severe) mental illness is always a human tragedy. The same is true of serious cognitive decline, which joins mental illness is robbing its victim of his or her human capacities.    

We've also said that, as far as we know, serious mental illnesses are actual illnesses, often with physiological bases over which the afflicted individual has no control. We've suggested that, as a political matter, pity for an afflicted public figure might tend to move more votes, as opposed to the hostility and loathing to which we humans are all inclined.   

(Hostility and loathing harden tribal positions.)

That said, the person to whom we refer spoke for over an hour! King Lear wandered on the moors. Last night, the sitting president went to the Waldorf Astoria. 

Here's what the AP saw:   

Trump returns to correspondents’ dinner for a rambling, insult-filled speech 3 months after shooting   

President Donald Trump returned to the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Friday night, delivering a rambling, hour-long speech that praised some journalists, took potshots at others, made jokes about public figures’ weight and intellect, and quipped about a third presidential term.  

[...]  

Trump’s sometimes off-color speech, which lasted just over an hour, was full of vague potshots directed at individuals he doesn’t like—from Jane Fonda to Bruce Springsteen to “Barack Hussein Obama.” The audience, reacting at first with some friendly laughs, slowly quieted to scattered titters as the insults piled up.   

And so on from there.

"Insults" was by far the more accurate term, as opposed to the misleading "potshots." The Washington Post was perhaps a bit more direct:  

Trump’s insult-laden speech to press dinner draws mostly stunned silence   

President Donald Trump attacked a slew of journalists and some of his favorite political foils at a slimmed-down redo of the White House correspondents’ dinner on Friday, comparing one female reporter to a transgender social media star, mocking politicians’ physical appearances, and bringing his audience to mostly stunned silence for more than an hour before pulling out a red Trump 2028 cap and declaring he was running for another term.   

[...]  

He said that he had once mixed up CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins, whom he said “never smiles,” with a transgender social media personality, Dylan Mulvaney, after he called the 34-year-old cable news star a “young, attractive woman.”   

He said he planned to host twice-weekly fights at the White House.

“We will have sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings, fighting,” Trump said to silence. “I could mention the governor of Chicago, but I’m going to mention instead Jerry Nadler. Oh my God! They’re fighting for a big piece of cheesecake, big fat piece of cheesecake.”  

For our money, the instant reports don't capture the pitiful squalor of what we saw as we watched the event on TV. 

Regarding the latest of the president's never-ending comments about Collins, Mediaite reports his remarks in sad full detail. To see that report, click here.

We expect to have more about last evening's event when transcripts become available. We haven't seen a report which captures how awful and sad the president's hour was.

For today, we'll link you to what Democracy Now once said, a long time ago, about the suggestion that we Americans need to develop a "politics of meaning."  

It was May 23, 1996. If you were willing to squint a bit, the shape of our current failing political culture had already come into view.

Democracy Now is an organ of what gets called "the left." Here's what Democracy Now said at that long-ago, distant time:   

Politics of Meaning  

There’s no doubt that we’re in a period of great cynicism about what government does or can do to improve our lives. Psychotherapist Michael Lerner believes this cynicism and the alienation that Americans feel are a direct result of the ethic of selfishness that pervades American politics, from the White House on down. 

Lerner is the author of a new book called The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism. Michael Lerner gained national exposure when Hillary Rodham Clinton used his phrase “Politics of Meaning” in a speech; the media then started calling Lerner “Hillary’s Guru”. 

Nonetheless, Lerner’s ideas are the foundation for a growing social movement in the U.S. that blends humanist politics with spirituality, and aims to provide a progressive answer to the power of religious right. Last month, over a thousand participants attended a first national conference in Washington D.C.

We’ll now hear an excerpt of a speech by Michael Lerner in which he explains his concept of a politics of meaning and its importance in this era of conservative domination.   

The audio is no longer there. Our comment would be this:   

Democracy Now was looking for a "progressive answer" to the culture then current on "the right." There's no reason why the people at that site shouldn't have felt that way, but in our view, we really need a new politics in which people from all major points of view can accept certain basic precepts.  

At present, we're all stuck within a failed state. We desperately need a new politics. 

Some current behaviors will have to go. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

Next week: We Blues


FRIDAY: Tarlov cited the new Fox poll!

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2026

One-way interruption: Our guess turned out to be right.

Yesterday afternoon, we told you this about that new SHOCK POLL:

"We'll guess that viewers of The Five will not be told, later today, about that SHOCKING new poll, the one with the Dems plus-11."

That was a reference to the new Emerson College pollthe poll which had the Democrats up by eleven points in the "generic ballot" race for control of the House.

Early yesterday afternoon, we guessed that it wouldn't be mentioned on The Five. We were correct about that:

On Wednesday, the tools had hyped a (possible outlier) poll which placed the Democratic lead at a mere three points. On Thursday, the tools didn't mention the (possible outlier) poll which tilted in the other direction.

Yesterday, we also mentioned the new Fox News poll, which had placed the Democratic Party's lead at 7 points. On Wednesday, the tools didn't mention their own new poll! 

Yesterday, though, the new Fox poll was mentioned right away! At 5:01 p.m., Jesse Watters said this:

WATTERS (7/23/26): New Fox poll, showing that a majority of Democrats actually have a favorable opinion of the DSA, and socialism in general. 

Democrat kingmaker James Clyburn also fuming over the Commies...

And so on from there. 

(Three hours later, on Jesse Watters Primetime. Watters said "Commie" or "Commies" at least a dozen times. At 8 o'clock sharp, he opened with a pseudo-discussion of the "Commie Catfight"or as chyron had it, the GIRL FIGHT!which has broken out, or so he said, between AOC and Kamala Harris. If you think we must be making this up, you can just click here.)  

Sad! Back to yesterday's edition of The Five:

At 5:01, with the day still young, Watters selected the part of the new Fox poll which showed that 59% of Democratic respondents had voiced a favorable view of the DSA (AKA "the Commies").

On The Five, that's equivalent to a finding of terminal ptomaine poisoning. Watters mentioned no other findings from the gloomy Fox poll.

Later, because Jessica Tarlov was in the Democratic Party chair instead of Harold Ford, the new Fox poll was mentioned a! Given the opportunity to try to speak, Tarlov offered this:   

TARLOV: There was a lot more to that Fox poll, and it was absolutely brutal for Republicans...

Democrats up 53 to 46.  In counties where the presidential vote was close—so, decided within 10 points—Democrats up 59-41. Up on inflation and prices and the economy. Young people, old people, women, independents—the only group that Donald Trump was up with was white voters, and that was just GOP plus one.

With Tarlov, not Ford, in the Democratic Party chair, the Fox survey did get mentioned. Now for the rest of the story:   

We'd offer Tarlov's attempt to speak this day as an example of the pitiful "interruption culture" which pervades this "cable news" program. By our reckoning, the interruptions went like this:   

As the program started, the four (4) pro-MAGA co-hosts were discussing the segment's basic topicPresident Trump's critique of the way "the crazy Commies" are "trying to burn down the [Democratic] Party." (We're quoting the language of Watters, who was moderating the segment.)  

The four went on until 5:09. Everyone got his or her say. There were no interruptions.    

Then, at 5:09, Watters finally threw to Tarlov. By our calculation, this is the way it went:

Tarlov spoke for almost two minutes before the first set of interruptions occurred. Inevitably, they came from Greg Gutfeld. You can see the muttplay here.   

After the interruptions and the laughter subsided, Tarlov attempted to start againand now she mentioned the Fox News poll! This time, it was Brian Kilmeade who stepped in to contradict and interrupt, with Gutfeld soon jumping in with more of his useless thoughts. 

"This is so nerdy," Gutfeld finally said as Tarlov tried to resume. "Yeah, you're in the weeds a little bit, Jessica," the idiot Watters now said, and with that astute assessment the segment was brought to an end.

Full disclosure!  Tarlov is frequently mugged in more aggressive ways on this baldly ridiculous programby more extensive interruption and group over-talking. But as we cite our accurate guess about that Dems plus-11 poll, we thought we'd invite you to see one of the ways this massively successful imitation of life operates when Tarlov is on the program.   

Tarlov doesn't interrupt or challenge the pro-MAGA four as they take their turns to speak. The interruptions run all one way on this sad, embarrassing showon this pitiful messaging program.   

Dems were up by 7, Tarlov actually managed to say. In the midst of the cable cage match, the Fox News pollDems plus-7actually did get cited!


FAULTY: Why did David Brooks say what he said?

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2026

What Yevtushenko said: Last Friday night, on the PBS NewsHour, David Brooks seemed to say that he wasn't concerned.   

One night before, the sitting president had made a self-ballyhooed national address. How had the speech been received? 

By the time the NewsHour aired, it was already clear that the Fox News Channel was ghosting the president's speechwas pretending it hadn't happened. As we noted in Monday's report, Brooks himself had this to say about the satrap's assertions:   

BENNETT (7/17/26): President Trump once again putting false claims about the 2020 election at the center of the national political debate is where we start, as we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. 

[...]

BENNETT: So, David, what did you hear in that speech last night? What do you think President Trump is trying to accomplish here?   

BROOKS: Oh, subtle. I couldn't figure it out.

(Chuckling)

He was— He's got to get more original in his confabulation. I mean, he's just stuck on this 2020 thing. There's never been any evidence. There's no evidence.   

Even in his role as moderator, Bennett spoke of the president's "false claims." In his reply, Brooks referred to the presidents ongoing "confabulation." 

"There's never been any evidence," he rather imprecisely said. Following which, he said this:   

BROOKS (continuing directly): I think the good news is, he doesn't have any policies to actually ruin our election system, as we heard from the secretaries of state. So we're going to have fair elections in this country.

"We're going to have fair elections," he said. The analysts screamed and tore at their hair. They had no idea why he'd said that.   

Are we going to have "fair elections" this year? The young analysts couldn't imagine why a person as smart as David Brooks would play Pollyanna that way. 

Bennett may have been puzzled too. Eventually, he returned to Brooks with a new question, generating this exchange:  

BENNETT: David, we spoke on this program last night with Ty Cobb, who was the special counsel during the first Trump administration, and he offered an extraordinary warning. He said that he believes that President Trump is laying the predicate for an emergency declaration around the elections.

Do you see the guardrails holding if President Trump tries to use the apparatus of the federal government to intervene more directly in how elections are administered?

BROOKS: I think so. A lot of people have thought that this is a predicate for some future action.

I think, if you look at the things he's tried to do, we're helped by the fact that these are mostly state-run things, so he does not have control. And what isn't state run is usually congressionally run. And so he has tried. The thing he's done successfully is the gerrymandering in Texas. He has rigged elections and Democrats have helped in California.

So that part he was successful at in degrading our elections. But pretty much everything else he's done, through executive order and other things, courts have overruled him. And so I do not believe he will have the power to actually affect our elections.   

A lot of people believe that Trump may try to interfere with the elections, Brooks now saidbut the courts would overrule him. And so, in effect, there's nothing to worry about.  

That struck us as an extremely strange assessment. When Bennett turned to Capehart, he somewhat meekly voiced an obvious point of concern:  

BENNETT (continuing directly): How do you see it, Jonathan?

CAPEHART:  Although I am a little concerned about what happens on Election Day.

Congressman Jim Himes was on with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the predicate for stealing the election. And he said, for instance, "What happens if they seize the ballot boxes from particular jurisdictions? What happens to the chain of custody?" 

That is when democracy will be at its most tenuous. And, sure, you can race to court and try to get them back, but the action's already done. 

And so I hope you're right that we are going to have a free and fair election this November. But I have a healthy imagination, and I hope that folks who care about free and fair elections also have a healthy imagination and are prepared for any and every scenario that could happen.  

Capehart said he was "a little" concerned about the president's possible actions. Then, he referred to what Jim Himes had said on Thursday's edition of The Last Word, a program which aired right after the president's speech.

Full disclosure! We too had seen Rep. Himes when he appeared on O'Donnell's program. 

In our view, Himes is one of the sharpest members of the House. He'd been followed on The Last Word by Senator Elissa Slotkin, who we regard as one of the sharpest members of the Senate. 

Speaking with O'Donnell, Himes and Slotkin had each voiced grave concerns about what the president might do come November:

Might the sitting president "deploy federal officers to seven states to seize ballot boxes" at midnight on election night? On Election Day itself, might he "send uniformed military or federal law enforcement to take care of alleged security threats around our polls," or to seize voting machines?

"These are things the president refuses to rule out, as does his cabinet," the very alert Senator Slotkin told O'Donnell that night. "The president has made it clear that this is not a joke to him."  

To see the full interview with Himes, you can just click here. For the interview with Slotkin, you can start by clicking here

Slotkin and Himes voiced deep concerns about what November might bring. Slotkin described meetings she's held with Michigan officials to gameplan the way to react to various scenarios on Election Day. And no, the courts couldn't stop a determined president from doing such things, not until Election Day was over and massive damage had been done.

Slotkin and Himes voiced specific deep concerns. One night later, Brooks was happy to report that we're going to have fair elections. We thought his presentation was extremely strange.   

David Brooks is a good, decent person. He's done a lot of excellent work. He isn't just a good, decent person, he's also perfectly sharp. 

That said, it seems to us that he may tend to hold himself back in the face of concerns like this. As our nation develops its new politicsthe politics which will save us from the downward spiral we're currently inwe'll learn to be sympathetic to possible shortcoming of this and other types. 

We think of Yevtushenko's portrait of who we (all) are as people:

Who we knew as faulty, the earth's creatures...

So Yevtushenko said


THURSDAY: Concerning the picking and choosing of polls!

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026

Who's going to win in November? Today, we have the reading of pollsfor example, of the new SHOCK POLL described below. 

The report comes from David Gilmour of Mediaite:   

SHOCK POLL: Democrats Open Up Stunning 11-Point Lead on Republicans on Generic Congressional Ballot

Democrats have opened an 11-point lead over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot in a new national poll, underscoring the party’s growing advantage just over 100 days before voters decide control of Congress.

The latest survey from Emerson College Polling found 53% of likely voters backing the generic Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 42% for the Republican candidate. The result represents a 3-point increase for Democrats and a 2-point increase for Republicans since Emerson’s June survey, widening the overall gap.   

The findings place Democrats well ahead of several other national polling averages, even as most continue to show the party holding a measurable advantage heading into the November midterms.

That's the way Gilmour starts. In the course of his report, he makes it clear that this encouraging result for Dems stands at present as a bit of an outlier. On the other hand, he also says this:

[continuing directly]
The Emerson findings are broadly consistent with other recent polling. A Fox News survey released Wednesday found Democrats holding a 7-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot, with 53% of voters saying they would back the Democratic candidate in their House district, compared with 46% for the Republican.  

Fox reported the margin was the party’s largest in its polling since 1996 and fell just outside the survey’s margin of error. 

Interesting! As of yesterday, a brand-new Fox News survey had Democrats up by 7! In fact, you can examine Fox Digital's report about that poll simply by clicking here

(Sub-headline: Latest survey shows Trump approval stuck near record low.)

We mention that poll for a reason:   

Late yesterday, on The Five, the tools spent a good chunk of their first two segments gushing about the latest poll from the Washington Post, which only had Democrats up by 3.  (For the first example, click here.)

No one mentioned the channel's own poll, the one which has Democrats up by 7. Also, no one mentioned the fact that the 3-point edge in the Post poll is the edge among registered voters. Among voters who say they're "virtually certain to vote"68% of the survey's respondentsthe advantage for Democrats rises to eight points.   

(For the Post's report on its poll, you can just click this.)

No one know how November's elections are going to turn out. That's especially true in the current circumstance, in which it's entirely possible that the sitting president will do something designed to interfere with turnout.   

(Or not.)   

No one knows how the worm will turn, but everyone knows how to pick and choose the data which favor their tribe's tribal preference. We'll guess that viewers of The Five will not be told, later today, about that SHOCKING new poll, the one with the Dems plus-11.  

Everyone knows that we can't continue this way as a nation. When we've established a "politics of meaning," will this picking-and-choosing of information continue to prevail?  

While we're at it, what the heck is a "politics of meaning?" Michael Lerner wrote the book on the topic. Tomorrow, we'll take a look there.


FAULTY: What did the president actually say?

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026

But also, the doomsday scenarios: Truly, it's been a "week that was."  

It has now been seven days since the sitting president, President Trump, delivered his televised national address—the televised address which wasn't televised by several networks and was then disappeared by Fox.  

Pretenders like Dana Perino have agreed to pretend that it never occurred! The speech has slid down the memory hole—but in the interest of preserving our flailing nation's history, what did the president say?   

For starters, he started by saying what you see below. Warning! As you can see on the videotape from the invaluable Rev, some of the things he said don't quite seem to parse:    

Trump Address to the Nation 7/16/26

Good evening. Before we begin, I'm proud to report that our country is safer, stronger, and far wealthier than it has ever been before. We are doing great. 

Less than two years ago, we inherited an economic and social disaster. After the worst inflation in 48 years, the wide-open borders with millions and millions of people pouring in from all over the world, including criminals of all types, and 11,888 murderers, many of whom killed more than one person. 

We had transgender for everybody, men in women's sports, crime ravaging our cities, and the whole world was laughing at us as a nation, but not any more. 

Two years ago, our country was dead. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world. America is respected like we have never been respected before. 

Before he began, he said all that. He then added quite a few similar claims. 

That very evening, on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell focused on the peculiar claim that, just two years before, we'd had "transgender for everybody." At this site, we googled the number 11,888, as we'd done quite a few times in the past, including the times when the president used to say that the bogus number in question was 13,099. 

(As everyone surely knows by now, we're now living in a post-fact, fact-free environment. There's no real point in trying to correct the president's endless misstatements, but for one of many factchecks of those twinned numbers, you can click here for a visit to FactCheck.org.)   

Before he began, he made those statements, many of which were clownishly bogus, a few of which can't exactly be said to be wrong. Then he began to say the things he'd promoted as being of prime importance. 

By now, the speech has disappeared—has been dispatched to the region where disregarded piffle dwells. But just for the sake of maintaining a record, these were his five main claims:

Tonight I'm announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure...

The documents cover five major areas of concern

First, they show that, over a period of years, starting during the 2020 election cycle, the People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million US voter files.   

[...]

Compounding the travesty, the second set of documents we are releasing reveals that members of the deep state, very, very famous group of people, many cases, in our intelligence agency, worked to actively suppress and downplay information about the extent of China's sinister election meddling, covering it up from both the President and the American people like nobody thought was possible.

[...]

The third set of documents we are releasing proves that for many years, Americans were blatantly lied to about the security of our election infrastructure, including electronic voting machines and ballot counting systems dishonest almost all. They're vulnerable, and they're easily compromised and people within our government knew that. 

[...]

The fourth set of documents reveals that, even when significant evidence of fraud has been detected, it has been buried and covered up. Among the disclosures tonight are FBI files detailing evidence of alleged fraud by a large-scale voter registration operation in Michigan.  

[...]

Finally, to reveal just how vulnerable our elections continue to be, we are releasing the results of a stunning investigation by the Department of Homeland Security. According to the DHS review, state voter rolls, and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections. Since Democrat states refuse to share their voter files, the real number is actually much higher than that.   

Those were the basic claims, and those claims were accompanied by a profusion of lesser claims. Fact-checks were attempted by MS NOW and CNN, though everyone knows that we now live in an essentially post-fact environment. 

In truth, the ultimate fact-check was offered by the Fox News Channel, where Dana Perino and all the others agreed that the best way to deal with this presentation was to pretend that it hadn't occurred. On Fox, the messengers agreed to talk about the many "Commies" instead. 

On Fox, the various friends took a dive. But so it now goes within the Babel which the president decided to hail that night, for perhaps the ten millionth time, as "the hottest country in the world."

This very morning, just one week later, a new report by Vitali and Boudreaux appears at MS NOW. 

Given his obvious worries about our elections, what might the sitting president decide to do this fall? Democrats are preparing for a type of Doomsday, the MS NOW scribes report:

Schumer convenes Democrats to prepare for election doomsday scenarios    

For two hours Wednesday, away from the cameras, in a room just steps away from the Senate chamber, a group of powerful lawmakers rehearsed for some of their darkest fears about November’s midterm elections: disinformation triggering voter-roll purges in key states before Election Day, National Guard troops deployed to polling places as voters cast their ballots and the machinery of a free election seizing up in real time.

Almost a dozen senators, seated at long tables arranged in a U-shape, with notepads and water bottles before them, were walked through three hypothetical situations set before, on and after Election Day 2026. At points, screens displayed mocked-up graphics or artificial intelligence-generated videos that could be used to sow disinformation. 

The exercises are part of a broader effort by Democrats—both inside government and out—to prepare for anything ahead of November. Republicans often decry their fears as hyperbolic. They may yet be right. 

But multiple Trump administration officials have declined to rule out [sending] ICE agents or other federal law enforcement to polling places in the fall, though doing so would be illegal. And more GOP election deniers are rising into positions essential to safeguarding democracy in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. 

And so on from there.

(For the record, we have no idea what that last sentence means. The sitting president isn't the only person whose statements may sometimes be garbled.)

Democrats are said to believe that the sitting president may be planning to undermine November's elections. We can think of no serious reason to assume that this fear is misplaced.   

That said:

What, us worry? That's what David Brooks seemed to say, last Friday night, with respect to this widespread fear.   

Brooks is a good and decent person, and he's perfectly bright. Why in the world—why on earth—would he have said what he did?

Tomorrow: Jonathan Capehart's fears