TUESDAY: Scott Galloway is a very good person!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026

Except when it comes to this:  Bill Maher and Scott Galloway recently hooked up at a club. Luckily, we're speaking here of Club Random, Bill's online extended chat room.  

As we noted yesterday, we hugely admire what Bill has done in his many years of blending humor with commentary. That's an extremely challenging task. 

Also, Galloway is an obvious high-IQ type. Despite that, when we watched the tape accompanying this report, we saw the gents say this

GALLOWAY: I think Gavin Newsom is going to be our president. I think we’re a looks-ist, sexist, racist country and the only thing I’m fairly confident about is that the Democratic nominee will be a straight white man over 6 feet tall.

MAHER: You think in general the country is racist and sexist. In 2026.

GALLOWAY: Yeah. Yeah.

MAHER: That characterizes us in a general way? 

To gauge the fellows' tone of voice, you have to watch the videotape. That said, Galloway's sweeping generalization is the sort of "lefty" thing Bill is typically inclined to challenge.   

To our ear, Bill sounds quite skeptical about Galloway's characterization, but he lets the assertion pass. Had we actually seen Bill defer to a major, high-end guest?   

We could picture it flat or round. But then, the ladsgood God!went on to agree about this:   

GALLOWAY (continuing directly): Well, OK, I don’t see any reason why Secretary [Hillary] Clinton lost to Donald Trump other than sexism. I think if she’d had a d*ck, she’d be our president.

MAHER: I mean, I’m a fan. You know, I always thought Hillary would be good. She’s one of the most sort of common-sensical people I’ve ever seen in politics.

GALLOWAY: Confident, smart, centrist.

MAHER: Smart. Yes. Centrist. Yeah. But I also see why she lost? Why she rubs people the wrong way?   

We're punctuating to tone, but those comments struck us as remarkably clueless. Let's start with this:  

Employing the rude language of rough men, Galloway seems to say that we the people are (probably?) too sexist to elect a woman president. As an example of what he means, he cites a woman (Hillary Clinton) who actually won the popular vote by just under three million votes!  

He can imagine no other reason why Candidate Clinton lost. 

Fellow citizens, please!  Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party nominee in 2016. By then, she had been savaged on the national stage for 24 years, by figures in the hard right and by waves of major figures within the mainstream press.  

(She's still slimed three or four nights a week on the grisly Gutfeld! showsometimes for (allegedly) not being sufficiently attractive, more often for (allegedly) being a murderer. She was hounded by "Emailgate" all through that election, with the New York Times widely blamed for the endless emphasis. 

She was mugged by James Comey twice in 2016once in early July, once in late October. Rachel Maddow and the others on that channel were careful not to defend her, as we detailed at the time.  

Some of the long- and short-term pounding she took in those years could definitely be attributed to sexism. But another fact is also true:

Her husband was a giant political talent. She, like almost everyone else on the face of the earth, basically wasn't and isn't. 

We don't mean that as a personal criticism, simply as a matter of fact. Meanwhile, the lads seemed to think that being "smart" is qualification enough. 

Obviously, noit isn't! How do these guys not know that?   

Back to the sweeping claim about the sexism / racism of them the American people:

It's amazing, but the Galloway types and the Hollywood types never stop alienating voters with presentations like this. Galloway is very smart and he's very well intentioned, but these people never stop getting themselves videotaped making sardonic remarks about how offensive the American people are.   

Bill seemed unimpressed with that part of what Galloway said, but these guys never stop doing this. They come on stage, win votes for Trump, then go name-calling away.  It's a form of caroling for the finer class of people.

You could almost call them "deplorables!" Except that condemnation is already taken. The condemnation came from Candidate Clinton, and it may have cost her the race.   

Everybody makes mistakes. Despite our admitted brilliance over here in Blue America, the academics and the Hollywood types basically never stop making this mistake. As Moses says to the Holy Trinity in the old Paul Reiser joke:

Are we here to play some golf? Or are we just gonna f*ck around?

(We believe you can figure it out.)

REFUSAL TO ASK: Senator Whitehouse became the latest...

TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026

...who wasn't willing to ask:  Is something wrong with President Trump? We've called it the one remaining question.

Last night, we'd have to say it was Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) who was refusing to ask.  

We'll detail his refusal below. It came during his appearance with Lawrence O'Donnell, whose work this year we've often admired and praised.

Down below, we'll detail the senator's refusal to ask. First, though, we'll take a look at O'Donnell's monologue concerning the new Supreme Court decisiona decision which may (or may not) turn out to be disastrous.

The monologue started exactly as shown below.  It started at 10:02 p.m., after two minutes of chuckling and laughing with Rachel Maddow, who continues to proveor so it sometimes seems to usthat life can still be very good if a major corporate group is paying you $20 million per year.

(Given the ongoing state of play, we do find all that laughing and chuckling highly unattractive at times.)

The monologue started at 10:02. There's no correct answer to this next question:

Does anything in this opening passage possibly seem slightly odd

O'DONNELL (8/24/26): If Natalie Harp went to law school, she could have written the Supreme Court opinion today about Donald Trump's attempt to seize control of voting by mail in the United States.  

It's one of those opinions issued on the so-called emergency docket, which means the case was not fully argued to the Supreme Court, but all of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court decided that the case was so urgent that it needed to be ruled on immediately, with none of them willing to actually sign this thing today, which leaves it very likely to have been written by Chief Justice John Roberts, whose first sentence could only be written by a Natalie Harp-type Trump groupie, someone who believes in the Trump fairy tale of a Never Never Land where Donald Trump was never. ever. ever indicted and charged with conspiracy against the United States of America for trying to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election.  

Donald Trump is the biggest and most famous election criminal in American historythe only president of the United States in history to call the secretary of state of Georgia and ask him to commit an election crime. [Audiotape]: "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have."  

The Supreme Court and Natalie Harp are just totally cool with thatthe Republican Supreme Court. 

What you just heard is one of the crimes that Donald Trump was charged with in both a federal indictment and a criminal indictment for violating Georgia state law. And so it took Natalie Harp-like delusion for the Supreme Court decision today to begin with this first sentence...

At this point, Lawrence quoted the decision's first sentence. But does anything in that opening passage possibly seem a bit odd? 

As we watched O'Donnell last night, that opening did strike us as odd. He had started at 10:02. It was now just 10:04, and he had already flagged "Natalie Harp" on four separate occasions! 

He had assailed the Chief Justice as a "Natalie Harp-type groupie." He'd also accused the Chief Justice of engaging in "Natalie Harp-like delusion."   

He'd pictured her as a law school grad. He'd pictured Natalie and the Court pretty much joined at the hip. 

She, of course, had nothing to do with the decision in question, which might turn out to be disastrously important. But it almost seemed that a "Natalie Harp-style obsession" had taken hold of this good person's head!

At this point, O'Donnell gave his analysis of the new Supreme Court decision. Soon, though, he was back to describing the six Republican-appointed Justices as "the Natalie Harps of the Supreme Court," and he later referred to John Roberts as "Chief Justice Natalie Harp!"

We've frequently admired O'Donnell's work this year. To our eye, he often seems like the only MS NOW anchor who actually takes it personally as the United States of America continues to slide down the slope, becoming a type of failed state, due to the conduct of the sitting president.   

The president's current move to seize control of voting by mail may end up hastening that descent. (Or not.) In large part, it will depend on what the Court decides to do when it assesses this matter on the merits.

But it seemed to us that O'Donnel was well out over his skis during last night's monologue. Eventually, he almost made it sound like Natalie Harp is the real cancer on the presidencythat poor unknowing President Trump is being unknowingly taken in by her Natalie Harp like behaviors. 

Harp was cited more than twenty times in the opening monologuea monologue about a Supreme Court decision in which she played no part.

Is something wrong with Natalie Harp? We can't exactly tell you. We can, however, tell you this:

It seems quite likely that something's wrong with the sitting president. His niece, the doctorate-holding clinical therapist, has assessed it like this:   

BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?

MARY TRUMP: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.

But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.  

His untreated disorders will only get worse. They're "only going to worsen"

Presumably, everyone can see that this is happening before our eyes, as he declares that he's good with flagpoles and very good with trees. 

He also seems to think he's good with the design of aircraft carriers, as Maddow noted last night. He's trying to affix his name to every available surface.

If this is the "cognitive decline" his niece described as "obvious," we'll only say that these declines happen to some people, not to all, and we'll note that the afflicted don't choose to go into decline.

He says he's good at everything now, and he's putting his name on every known surface. Still, men like Lawrence may want to talk about "the girl." 

Meanwhile, Senator Whitehouse! Last night, he spoke with Lawrence about the Court's ruling. He then discussed the president's latest (trade) war, which seems to make zero sense.

Even the Wall Street Journal has called it his dumbest trade war, the senator correctly said. And then, at least to our ear, he became the latest to take a dive:

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE (8/24/26): He's making a huge mess. And I can't help but think there's something in the back of his strange mind that knows he's failing as president and that wishes to tear down the whole Republican Party with him so that he does not fail alone. 

There's almost no other reason why a president with control over all the chamber of Congress and the White House, would, on the issue most important to the American people, do something so stupid and so counterproductive and so chaotic...

Question! Does the sitting president have "a strange mind?" Or could it be that he's mentally ill, and that it's going to worsen? Because that's what his niece told Erin Burnett before being hustled away, leading to the next bout of media silence.  

("There's no other reason" for what he keeps doing? Could it be that he's mentally ill, or in "obvious" cognitive decline?)

Will he gain control of voting by mail? That remains to be seen. 

What night he do after November 3? Having taken down the GOP, could he decide to take down the whole country?

Could he even decide to do that? Everyone is in agreement! They agree not to wonder or ask!

Tomorrow: We leave this framework behind


MONDAY: Scarborough asks existential question!

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2026

Lightly stoned, Bill defers: We're glad to see DePaolo and Gilmour covering the things that get said on Morning Joe

In the segment reported here, Joe Scarborough asks the relevant questionthe question the other kids aren't sharp enough to conjure:

Scarborough Warns Trump is Tearing Down Institutions ‘Brick By Brick’: ‘Are We Going to Survive?’   

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough warned that the Trump administration is tearing down federal institutions “brick by brick” as he questioned aloud whether Americans will “be able to rebuild” in two years. 

[...]

“Years ago, Steve Bannon said he was a Leninist, and he and Trump were going to go in and they were going to tear down the state, take it to the ground,” he began. “You look at what Gillian [Tett] said they’re doing with the census, one of the most basic, should be noncontroversial things ever, they’re trying to rig that, it seems.” 

He continued: “What they’re doing with the post office, using the post office to do unconstitutional things with the midterm elections, taking it from the states’ power and giving it to the executive branch, which is not in the Constitution. It’s unconstitutional. You see what’s happened at the DOD, you see what’s happened at the Justice Department, you see what’s happened at the National Institutes of Health, all of these institutions that have been built up to protect Americans and to extend American power and safety across the globe, are being torn down brick-by-brick, piece-by-piece, by this Trump administration. 

“And the question people have is, are we going to survive? Are we going to be able to rebuild this two years from now?”

Will we be able to survive? The other children are too slow to come up with that formulation as they offer the standard complaints about the sitting president and about the people around him.

Let us add this observation, an observation we've made before:  

Election Day this year is Tuesday, November 3. No one knows what's going to happen starting on Wednesday, November 4.  

On that day, the sitting president will have two years and more than two months left on his current term. Over here in Blue America, no one knows what he may be planning to do during that long, slow drive toward the cliff.

Might this be the week when we Blues start to see the many ways we've failed? The many ways we self-impressed Blues have helped this crisis develop?

In search of that type of self-awareness, we expect to turn tomorrow to this cluelessness on the part of Maher and Galloway, and then we'll move on from there.   

We've always (more than) admired what Bill Maher has achieved. Unless you've been inside the business, it's hard to understand the amount of skill and insight involved in what he has done.

That said, good God! As he defers to Galloway, will someone please riddle us this:

 How in the world is it possible? How do we Blues manage to persist in arrogance and dumbness so vast?


ONLY ONE QUESTION REMAINS: It all comes down to this one question!

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2026

But is anyone willing to ask? We'll admit it! At the time when this question appeared, we don't think we ever heard about it:

Did Trump's motorcade drive through the newly painted reflecting pool?   

We admit it! Within the endless tsunami of crazy behaviors characteristic of the Trump era, we don't remember being aware of that question at all!  

Having said that, you're right! The bungling of the reflecting pool seems very "June 2026" at this much later point in time. He wanted it done for the Fourth of July. The bungling was a big deal in June.

That said, we're quoting the headline of a report from the Snopes sitea report delivered by Anna Rascouët-Paz, all the way back on June 23.   

Snopes was trying to determine whether a particular crazy behavior had actually occurred back on May 7. Given the nature of the era, the answer turned out to be yes.

Here's how her report began:    

Fact Check
Did Trump's motorcade drive through newly painted reflecting pool?   

In June 2026, a claim spread online that President Donald Trump's motorcade had driven through the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after it was painted and sealed as part of a more than $14 million renovation project.

The rumor circulated as the U.S. National Park Service struggled to maintain the appearance of the Washington, D.C., landmark after Trump ordered it to be repainted to "American flag blue" for the country's 250th anniversary. 

Examples of the claim spread on X and Instagram, while the self-described progressive Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted it on Facebook. That post featured an image of five black SUVs driving through the empty pool, and overlaid text suggesting the motorcade may have damaged the paint and sealant before it had fully set, thus later causing the paint to peel off.   

Several Snopes readers also emailed us and searched our website to verify the veracity of the story.

Back in June, a claima rumorwas circulating about a possible bit of crazy behavior. Snopes exists to examine such claimsand when Rascouët-Paz fact-checked this claim, it turned out that the claim was perfectly accurate!

Her report continues as shown:

[Continuing directly]
In short, the claim is true and the images are authentic. In early May 2026, after the pool was repainted dark blue and before the NPS began to refill it with water, a White House official posted a video showing Trump's motorcade driving though the landmark. 

[...]

[VIDEO INCLUDED]

Various X posts credited the above video to White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, who posted it earlier that day.

"They see me rolling," Cheung's post reads, referencing rapper Chamillionaire's 2005 song "Ridin'." Cheung added, "President Trump rides in the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial!"

In real time, the highly volatile Steven Cheung had posted video of the event. You can see Cheung's video by clicking to the Snopes report.   

Did this bizarre behavior play a role in the subsequent failure of the Reflecting Pool project? Rascouët-Paz said she didn't know.  

That said, we don't remember ever hearing about this nutcase behavior at the time it occurred. In part, the reason for that is right there in the Snopes report.   

When this strange event occurred, did major news orgs report the event? The answer seems to be basically no. 

Though she does cite three local D.C. TV stations, Rascouët-Paz lists only CNN, the New York Post and Forbes as national orgs which reported this event. And none of the six links she provides go to classic news reports about this peculiar event. All six links go to brief videos posted on YouTube.

In fact, the AP did report this event, in real time, on June 8. The report includes several photos of Cheung's gonzo act of ridin' and rolling on the surface of the Pool, with the president himself aboard.   

That said, and as best we can tell, this behavior didn't receive a whole lot of coverage. There's been so much weird behavior in this unraveling second termand there's so little interest in coming to terms with the meaning of this state of affairsthat relatively minor acts of inanity have tended to slide between the crackshave tended to be disappeared.   

We'll now admit to a terrible fact. Video of these nutballs rollin' the length of the Reflecting Pool instantly reminded us of video of you-know-who, rolling into various capitals during his seizure of Europe 

For you, flash reactions may differ. Setting our mental flash to the side, Cheung did manage to generate substantial coverage last week with his furious and ugly reaction to What Jon Ossoff Said. 

Should Senator Ossoff have said what he said? Opinions on that will differ. But Cheung responded as he routinely does, with the ugly fury and the ugly rage which have become his trademark.   

That furious conduct is also the trademark of Cheung's more powerful boss. In our view, only one political question remains, and that question is this:   

Is something wrong with President Trump? No, reallyis it possible that something is actually wrong with the world's most powerful person?   

In our view, that's the only political question which remainsexcept for this companion question:

Is there even one journalist in Blue America's Potemkin brigade who's willing to stand, in full public view, and ask that obvious question?

Tomorrow: Goldberg gets it right


SATURDAY: Did Ossoff float an insinuation?

SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 2026

Citizen Heilemann, please! Should Natalie Harp be subject to ridicule?  On balance, we'd say no. 

That said, we told you the ridicule was going to come. Starting yesterday afternoon, here's a sample, from Mediaite alone:   

Natalie Harp Seen Running Behind Trump’s Golf Cart in Newly Unearthed Photo 
(For full report, click here.)
Natalie Harp Once Claimed Trump Saved Her Life in Bizarre Resurfaced Clip 
(For full report, click here.)
FLASHBACK: Natalie Harp’s Election-Denial Interview With Karoline Leavitt Resurfaces 
(For full report, click here.)

Maggie Haberman Describes Natalie Harp as Trump’s ‘Binkie’  
(For full report, click here.)

All of a sudden, a lot of material is being resurfaced (unearthed). Harp's conduct is framed as "bizarre," and she's described as a "binkie."   

In that FLASHBACK report, readers learned that Harp told Leavitt that the 2020 election was fixed. Our questions:

Is there anyone in MAGA World who hasn't advanced such unfounded claims? 

Also, when did major orgs like the New York Times ever devote appropriate focus and space to the widespread existence of crazy claims made by the president himself? 

We Blues! Our stars are afraid of the sitting president (and of the Fox News Channel). On the other hand, we do enjoy mocking "the girl," just as it ever was.

Is some such gender politics involved in the ridicule being directed at Harp? Consider what Maggie Haberman said on CNN, as reported within that "Trump's binkie" dispatch.  

Haberman has done tons of outstanding work during the endless Trump years. With respect to that "binkie" remark, this is what she said:

I described her the other day as, you know, a binkie, for lack of a better way of putting it—a comfort blanket. There are men who have played that role for him too. One of them would be Boris Epstein, about whom—you know, he is legal adviser—of whom the president describes him as his psychiatrist and says sometimes you just want somebody to tell you everything is going to be okay. That is a lot of what the president values.    

For lack of a better way of putting it? To our ear, Haberman—she's done tons of good work—was possibly trying to slide away from an earlier unfortunate comment. (Everyone makes mistakes.)   

Possibly trying to slide away from an earlier gendered remark, she offered Boris Epstein as a male example of what she was talking about. We'll assume that she has never referred to him as a binkie—and you can be sure that, if someone ever did, no one would notice or care. 

(Epstein remains almost wholly unknown. Harp is becoming quite famous.)

With respect to going after "the girl," the most remarkable statement of all came early on, from a journalist who has been widely and correctly praised for her work on the Jeffrey Epstein matter. Good grief! Senator Ossoff delivered a speech, and Julie K. Brown said this:

Award-Winning Epstein Reporter Brands Natalie Harp the ‘Side Piece’ of Trump   

Celebrated journalist Julie K. Brown joined the gang of critics bashing President Donald Trump’s aide Natalie Harp on Wednesday by branding her the president’s “side piece.”

Brown—who won a series of awards for her reporting on dead sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein in The Miami Herald—made the accusation on X.  

[...]

“None of these people defending Trump’s side piece seemed to have any issue with Trump calling female reporters ‘piggy’ and ‘hag,'” Brown posted.   

Her accusation stands out, considering Brown is one of the more acclaimed journalists in America.

And so on from there. Brown—a fully justified feminist / humanist hero—described Harp as Trump's "side piece." Dear friends, riddle us this:

His side piece of what?  

(Everyone makes mistakes.)

Yesterday morning, John Heilemann swore, on Morning Joe, that Senator Ossoff wasn't making this same insinuation when he spoke in Atlanta last Sunday.  He misquoted Ossoff's words as a way of proving his point.

Please don't make us waste our time reviewing what Heilemann unwisely said. For the record, though, Ossoff has established himself as a genuine master of stinging rhetoric. In our view, his brilliantly crafted insinuation was blindingly obvious that day.   

Based on a mountain of reported evidence, Natalie Harp seems to have extremely limited judgment. We'll admit that we sympathize with the person who lost her father the way she did, after her trial by bone cancer.

She seems to have extremely limited judgment. That's grotesquely true of the president himself, but our Blue American tribunes are unwilling to say what they surely must know about him—and we do enjoy mocking "the girl."   

European literature began with a story of subjugation. The impulse has never left, and we Blues aren't always sharp enough to understand who we sometimes are. 

Monday: The rage of Steven Cheung

What the senator said: As many people have noted, Senator Ossoff has established himself as a genuine master of stinging rhetoric. It's a remarkably powerful tool. This is what he said:  

He doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.   

That's astoundingly skillful rhetoric. For the record, we aren't even saying it's morally wrong.

That said, Walt Nauta snuck away on the catering truck too. Do the lovebirds share "their palace" with him?   

Within the boundaries of that rhetoric, we think you can see that they don't!


FRIDAY: "Multiple paths," the Cook Report says!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2026

Unless you're watching Fox: Who will control the Senate next year?  

We have no idea. If we were somehow forced to bet, we'd bet that the GOP will retain control, but it seems to us that old rules of thumb concerning such predictions have never seemed quite so old.   

In yesterday morning's report, we reported this new fact:

El-Sayed is ahead by sevenunless you're watching Fox!  

That bit of whimsy concerned one part of the clowning which had occurred on the previous day's edition of The Five

Leave it to the children! During their discussion of a recent statement by Chuck Schumer, Emily Compagno was incoherent and Harold Ford was an embarrassing mess, with Dana Perino ruling the roost. 

Along the way, we noted the fact that even if Michigan falls, observers have begun to say that there are now several ways Democrats could imaginably end up in control of the Senate.   

Today, Sarah Rumpf discusses this state of affairs over at Mediaite. Headline included, her report starts like this:   

Cook Political Report Finds Democrats Have ‘Multiple Paths’ to Take the Senate  

The Cook Political Report updated its ratings for the upcoming midterms, predicting that Democrats now have “multiple paths” to take back the Senate majority, especially with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) dragging down Republicans.

The GOP’s grasp on majority control of the House and Senate hangs in the balance this November, and political prognosticators and pollsters have been highlighting several states that are in play, including the Lone Star State, where Texas State Rep. James Talarico (D) is facing off against Paxton to succeed the incumbent, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). 

[...]  

The new shifts, [Cook's Jessica] Taylor said, mean “there are multiple paths now for Democrats to Senate majority,” so even if they lose tough races in Maine or Michigan, for example, they could still take the Senate.

It was “still a very narrow path” and Cook was now rating the overall Senate majority as a Toss Up, said Taylor. It “still might slightly favor Republicans,” she continued, “but it is an increasingly competitive opportunity for Democrats.”   

The Cook Report isn't always right. But that's what the Cook Report says.

Like the performers on The Five, we have no way of knowing what will happen in November. Unlike the silly stars of The Five, we do know how to describe what Chuck Schumer recently said to the Washington Post.   

Overall, the clowning on The Five is an undisguised assault on the very possibility of the American project. Last night, we forced ourselves to watch a large chunk of Jesse Watter Primetime, which operates from the sludge-filled basement found beneath the National Tabloid / Slag Heap Building.

The Fox News Channel is a disgrace. So are the endless Blue American news orgs which are unwilling to report and discuss what the messengers do over there.

Our stars are afraid to talk about Fox. They're graduates of the finest schools, but they simply aren't willing to serve.

HOPELESSLY DEVOTED/LIMITED JUDGMENT: "He felt compassion," Chekhov wrote!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2026

We Blues most likely won't: "Jesus Christ is down here on the waterfront?"

We ourselves don't hold religious or cosmological beliefs, aside from the belief that we humans don't know what we are or where we are or how we happen to be here.  

Other people do have religious beliefs. In the honored film, On the Waterfront, the Karl Malden characterFather Pete Barrytells a collection of angry longshoremen that Jesus Christ is right down there, is among them.   

Telephonically, and by happenstance, we had occasion last Sunday to discuss the film's female undercard. We spoke with a lifelong friend about the performance by Eva Marie Saint.

In that part of the film, the Brando characterTerry Malloyis able to see that Edie Doyle is a better person than he is. Remarkably, he tries to become more like her.   

It starts in the famous scene where the young pair walk in a park. He picks up the glove she has dropped and slips it onto his hand. 

Soon, she tells him how she would have treated him, back in their days in Catholic school when the nuns had treated him harshly:    

TERRY: The way those sisters used to whack me, I don't know what. They thought they were gonna beat an education into me, but I foxed 'em.   

EDIE: Maybe they just didn't know how to handle you.   

TERRY: How would you have done it?   

EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness?  

We'd call that a very strong moment, and an unusual plea.

As the movie proceeds, Terry Malloy lets the deeply insightful female character help him discover the depth of his conscience. (That key word appears throughout). 

Inevitably, the film was destined to end with a furious fist fightwith the classic masculine solution. But in our view, it's this unusual gender undercard which makes the film so great.

We're recommending kindness today in one part of the conduct of our Blue political wars. Are you able to feel empathy for this new arrival on the front?   

Natalie Harp  

Natalie Harp (born 1991) is an American political aide and former television presenter who has served as special assistant to the president and executive assistant to the president of the United States since 2025.

[...]

Natalie Harp was born in 1991. Her father, Robert Harp, was a real estate broker who founded a consultancy for travel companies; he died by suicide in July 2020. Harp was raised in California. She is a practicing Christian. She and her brother were homeschooled. Harp graduated from Point Loma Nazarene University in 2012, and from Liberty University in 2015 with an MBA.  

By 2017, Harp had become vocally critical of healthcare in the United States after she began suffering from health issues, particularly chronic pain and complications incurred by a medical error involving intravenous therapy for stage II bone cancer. In a 2019 interview on Fox News, she praised Trump for signing into law a federal right-to-try law that she claimed allowed her to access experimental treatments which she credited with saving her life. However, The Washington Post cast doubt on Harp's story, citing experts that noted the law's limited scope and reporting that two months before the law was signed she had already made public comments about receiving the new treatment.   

Trump invited Harp to speak at the 2020 Republican National Convention... By that month, she had become a member of the advisory board for Trump's 2020 presidential campaign.   

And so on from there.

That background isn't much like ours. That said, can you imagine feeling empathy for someone whose father took his own life when she was 28for someone who apparently dealt with a life-threatening cancer condition when she was even younger than that?   

(For that Washington Post article, just click here. We've never seen anyone say that Harp didn't face a life-threatening cancer issue in the period described.)

Today, Harp will become a figure of ridicule due to the release of two letters she wrote to the president in recent years. In one of the letters, she expresses gratitude for the fact that she'd been able to travel to Ireland and Scotland as a Trump aide:   

"I’ll never forget when you made that promise to me after losing my Dad, and I know how happy he is right now that I did get to go to Scotland and Ireland, as he always wanted for me." 

Are you able to feel for that person? To read the letters in full, click here. For excerpts, click this.  

(Chekhov, writing of the male protagonist Gurov in The Lady with the Lapdog, a story widely considered to be one of the greatest ever written: "He felt compassion for this life, still so warm and lovely, but probably already not far from beginning to fade and wither like his own...He felt profound compassion.")  

Harp will be subjected to extensive ridicule. It's the way Homey plays.

Beyond that, she seems to have vastly imperfect political and journalistic judgment, as is true of many others in this dangerous, rage-filled time.   

It seems that Harp's conduct has sometimes, perhaps frequently, been highly unusual. According to Maggie Haberman, the Secret Service had become "alarmed" at one point by the content of her letters to Trumpand given the way the world sometimes works, it's hard to say that their concern was misplaced.   

That said, Natalie Harp is a person. On this morning's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough described this aspect of her person as he spoke with John Heilemann:

SCARBOROUGH (8/21/28): By the way, I've spoken to Natalie Harp a good bit, as most people havevery polite, and we have polite, kind conversations. I've been in the White House, and I’ve talked to Donald Trump, the president, and seen her there. Never once assumed anything inappropriate was going on...

Scarborough described an actual person, a person with whom he has routinely spoken in thoroughly normal ways. He seems to say that she traffics in kindness on the personal level, even when conversing with an aggressive critic of the highly disordered person she serves.

That said, her behavior has been unusual. She seems to have extremely bad judgment, much like the powerful person who has positioned her where she is.

Of course, other people have limited judgment too. For all the outstanding work he has done, Scarborough still refuses to tell the truth about the person for whom Harp works. 

Scarborough is hardly alone in that agreement not to speak. Many of us Blues are going to beat up on Harp while refusing to be forthright about the much more powerful man. And by the way:

Heilemann's elaborate claim todayhis claim that Jon Ossoff wasn't making an insinuation when he mentioned "Natalie" in his speechcould hardly have been much more clueless. We may discuss that cluelessness tomorrow.

In closing for today, we'll say this:

Harp's outsized devotion to the sitting president is one thing. Beyond that, her apparent lack of journalistic judgment is amazingly widespread.

Steven Cheung's ugly rage is something much more significant. Our heralded Blue American journalists all know the backstory here. 

They know the source of the destructive rage. Eagerly preserving their access to paychecks, they all agree not to name it.

Still coming: The rage of Trump and Cheung


THURSDAY: He knows how to buy good trees!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026

And he's very good at flagpoles: "I'm very good at flagpoles," the sitting president said.   

He said it yesterday, during a 32-minute press corps excursion. On CNN, Kasie Hunt described as "an impromptu tour of his various White House construction projects."   

The man is clearly out on his feet. The comment recalls what he said to Haberman and Swan when they interviewed him in the Oval Office at the start of the current war:

From Regime Change, Haberman/Swan:
As he greeted us, the war seemed the furthest thing from Trump’s mind. On the Resolute Desk, instead of a map of the Middle East, were printouts of maple trees. 
“I’m ordering trees for the White House,” Trump told us. “I know how to buy good trees.”   

Plainly, he's out on his feet. He says he knows how to buy good trees, and he's very good at flagpoles.  

The man is out on his feet. The press corps' refusal to come to terms with that fairly obvious fact is an astonishing part of our failing nation's journalistic culture.

It's especially amazing to see the press corps refuse to discuss this state of affairs in the wake of the situation which unfolded with the previous president.  

That said, nothing is going to make them change. And when academics (quite rarely) attempt to speak, they end up losing their jobs.

It's in this context that the peculiar behavior widely attributed to executive assistant Natalie Harp takes on obvious relevance, though we recommend generosity here, even a bit of kindness.

Very unusual behavior seems to surround the sitting president. We'll plan on detailing what we mean when we return to this topic tomorrow.


PITIFUL/INACCURATE: A new poll had the hopeful ahead!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2026

Unless you were watching The Five: Another day, another pollthough of course, it's only one poll.   

The new Michigan poll is only one poll. But here's what the new poll says:   

SHOCK POLL: El-Sayed Opens Up 7-Point Lead Over GOP Rival After Recent Data Showed Him Trailing   

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (D) came ahead with a healthy lead on his opponent Republican Mike Rogers in the latest polling following recent surveys showing a much closer race.

According to polling from Susquehanna released on Wednesday, El-Sayed is polling at 46% while Rogers is seven points behind at 39%.   

Other recent polling has shown a much closer race. A Fox News survey had Rogers leading El-Sayed at 51%-47%...

Last week, we took note of that Fox News poll. The new poll from Susquehanna has El-Sayed up by seven. 

Susquehanna Polling and Research has often been praised for its work in the past. That, of course, doesn't mean that this new poll has to be accurate. 

Is El-Sayed actually leading Rogers at this point? There's no way to know for sure! We do know that we all should feel sorry for the messenger children of the Fox News Channel, who found themselves forced to go deep into the blarney on the day that new survey appeared.  

Friends, is there anything Dana Perino won't say at this point? Surrounded by a gang of spear-chuckers, she was assigned the unlovely task of leading the second pseudo-discussion on yesterday's edition of The Five.  

Their mission, should the panelists choose to accept it:

Convince the largest audience in all of American "cable news" that El-Sayed's efforts are coming undone. 

Perino was hosting the segment. Because there's nothing she won't read from prompter for pay, she wittily started with this:  

PERINO (8/19/26): So he's Chucky [?] mission overboard! 

Chuck Schumer sure sounds like he's already hedging his bets on far-left Abdul El-Sayed, the candidate he did not back in the primary, telling the Washington Post [text appears on the screen]:

"A path to winning back the Senate clearly goes through Michigan, but we have a whole bunch of different paths." 

Inevitably, a witty Fox chyron said this: 

SCHUMER CHUCKS EL-SAYED  

With Perino politely reciting, that's what millions of viewers were told. 

Having said that, hold on! Did that statement really make it sound like Schumer has given up on the Michigan Senate race? As the segment proceeded, the other children agreed to pretend that it did. 

It didn't quite sound that way to us. When we went to the Washington Post report in question, this is the larger passage we found:   

Backlash in Michigan complicates Democrats’ road to retaking the Senate

[...]

Schumer said he was confident El-Sayed would win, citing the enthusiasm of his supporters. Still, Schumer and J.B. Poersch, the president of Senate Majority PAC, the lead Democratic super PAC in Senate races, both disputed that Democrats had no shot at retaking the majority without Michigan.

“A path to winning back the Senate clearly goes through Michigan, but we have a whole bunch of different paths,” Schumer said.  

We don't know what Schumer actually thinks, but that's the actual Post report about what he actually said. He may even believe, as some observers may be coming to do, that Democratic candidates suddenly seem to be alive in an unexpected number of traditional red states. 

(That would include some Independent candidates who would caucus with Democrats.) 

We don't know what Schumer thinks, but that's what Schumer said. Unless you were watching The Five, where Dana Perino was reading text designed to please Fox viewers.

Increasingly, we're struck by the things Perino seems to be willing to do on The Five. In that opening volley, she pleasured viewers with the thought that it's all over in Michigandid so on the very day when a poll arrived showing El-Sayed ahead by seven points! 

The new poll went unmentioned by Perino, but also by the day's other performers:   

The Five: Wednesday, August 19, 2026  
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered  
Harold Ford: increasingly hard to explain
Jesse Watters: host, Jesse Watters Primetime 
Dana Perino: co-host, The Five 
Tom Shillue: comedian

Her initial presentation hadn't seemed to make sense, but the other children played along as the segment continued. 

It fell to Harold Ford to say the following. Allegedly, he was sitting in the program's Democratic Party/non-MAGA chair. It fell to him to say this. 

PERINO: Harold Ford Jr., if Michigan is off the table, do the Senate Republicans breathe a little easier, even if they're having to spend a lot of money in Ohio and Texas?  

FORD: So, for the leader of the Democrats in the Senate to say that about Michigan, I think it gives a window, not only into his thinking, but I think some of the things Jesse said in his remarks about, his comments about, the swing vote there...  

Did Ford know what Schumer had actually said? Later, the persistently puzzling Emily Compagno improbably pitched in with this:

PERINO: Emily, Bernie Brosand Bernie Sanders himself strikes again. And I imagine that Chuck Schumer doesn't want to be seeing him in the lunchroom.

COMPAGNO: It's so telling that he's not sayingSchumer's not saying, "OK, come on, guys! We can still win!" Or, "We can still win without Michigan." 

He's explaining how they can win without Michigan. So this is not sort of cheerleading to me. This is not championing, this is crisis management.  

In fairness, Compagno is a famous fast talker. We aren't sure if the word "or" was included in her initial jumble or not.

Either way, we have no idea what she meant, and neither did anyone else. It was "close enough for cable news work" on the day when that new poll appeared.

("I think they've already given up" on Michigan, Compagno eventually said.)

Regarding Perino, she advanced two other points to tell Fox viewers what Fox News wanted its viewers to hear:   

Additional points from Perino: 

1) A 20-year-old staffer for El Sayed had made a stupid remark on X. According to several panelists, this would surely be enough to doom the campaign all by itself 

2) Back in May, the candidate had "compared himself to Jesus."   

The silly remark by the 20-year-old is likely to affect as many as zero votes. The children were really reaching when they wailed about that.   

Regarding El-Sayed as Jesus, Perino voiced that claim as soon as she had finished pretending to report what Schumer had said. We're going to leave it to you to decide if El-Sayed had drawn some such comparison in some sort of troubling way.   

You can click here to see what The Five's viewers were shown. For a somewhat fuller presentation of the interview session in May, you can simply click this.   

As for yesterday's presentation, we would tell you this:   

Schumer had told the Washington Post that El Sayed is going to win. Also, a new poll had him up by seven points:

Unless you were watching The Five!

Tomorrow: Days of "socialism" (and what the Sam Hill is that?)


WEDNESDAY: All we humans secretly want...

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2026

...is a chance to talk about this: We had planned to write, this afternoon, about the remarkable strength of the rhetoric.

The remarkable strength of Jon Ossoff's rhetoric. The remarkable strength of this:

SENATOR OSSOFF (8/16/26): In this White House, they view persistence in deceit as a virtue. You hear me, Atlanta?

And there's something uniquely despicable about lying a nation into war. Treating citizens as fools, and those who serve as pawns.

Aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, they've now been at sea for 240-plus days without a port call. It's a Navy record. And still—and still—

And still, they serve with excellence. 

And still, they serve with excellence! God bless the sailors, Marines, aviators and all aboard the United States Ship Abraham Lincoln! 

AUDIENCE: [Cheers]    

See, they don't expect luxury. They'll endure hardship. But they deserve competent leaders who send them into combat only when necessary, and with decisive clarity of purpose, not fools who lie about the purpose and progress of war.  

And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs, and trades stocks. 

See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.   

To watch the speech, just click this. That passage starts at the 7:30 mark.

Good God! "They view persistence in deceit as a virtue?" Especially as delivered, that's a brilliant formulation.

And then, after praising the greatness of us the peopleafter praising the greatness of we who servehe actually delivered this string of stinging insults:

While he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs, and trades stocks.

See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.

"He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar?"

"On their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar?" Wow:

Like waves rolling in when you might even drown, those final twelve (12) words, all by themselves, deliver one stinging insult after another. And the fact that you've never heard anyone else say it that way suggests the possibility that he actually means it!

David Axelrod laments the presence of two widely cited words: 

"With Natalie." 

In a tweet, he says this:   

AXELROD (8/19/26): No one has been more consistently eloquent or incisive in exposing @realDonaldTrump than @Ossoff. The paragraph from his weekend speech that has gotten so much attention was a brutal takedown.

But two words in it, "with Natalie" seemed gratuitous and unnecessary.

They juiced the virality of it, I'm sure. Probably thrilled some in the base, who figured it was just giving Trump a taste of his own nasty medicine.

But they distracted and detracted from the power of the message.   

We agree with the words we've highlighted. That said, should Ossoff have included the two words in question? 

We can teach it flat or round.  

Of one thing you can be sure. Many people "in the base," and certainly in the mainstream press, did in fact hear nothing except those two thrilling words. 

It's what we were told, long ago, by a major player inside the Bill Clinton re-election campaign:  

It's all about the girl, she (very) sadly said, as the Lewinsky excitement was breaking. 

She meant that the national press wanted to talk about nothing elsewere going to talk about nothing else. It's clear from much of the current reaction that many of us the people today are reacting in a similar way.

We'd call that human, not wrong. Meanwhile, there's the enduring madness of the rhetoric favored by Steven Cheung. Let's consider that tomorrow.


CRAZY/IRRESPONSIBLE: "That horrific shell of a human," she said!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2026

Compagno does it again: In our view, Emily Compagno belongs on major "cable news" shows the way a flounder belongs on a bicycle.   

That doesn't mean that she's a bad person. By normal standards, the vast majority of people, ourselves included, would be un- or under-qualified for the prominent role afforded to Compagno by the gruesome corporate tools who run the Fox News Channel. 

Having said that, whatever! Last night, there the reliable firebrand sat, part of the stunningly undistinguished panel which had been assembled for the Gutfeld! show. 

(For the record, Gutfeld! isn't a "late-night comedy show," as the channel likes to pretend. It's a propaganda messaging program which airs in classic primetime slotsat 10 p.m. in the East, at 9 o'clock in the Central time zone, at 7 p.m. on the coast.)   

Last night, the usual collection of droogs had been assembled to pretend to discuss news topicsand before long, there she went again! During the program's second segment, Compagno piped up with this outburstwith an outburst we'll explain below.

She spoke with guest host Tom Shillue:  

SHILLUE (8/18/26): Has the corner finally turned on Fauci?  

COMPAGNO: I mean, it must have. Look, when I first saw this

First of all, none of us are surprised, and we've been covering it herethe abject fraud and corruption that that horrific shell of a human Fauci was wielding during Covid to really destroy our lives and lose lives. 

As you can see if you click that link, she ranted on, in this dangerous way, as she routinely does, attacking "that horrific shell of a human."

According to Compagno, Dr. Fauci had been wielding power during Covid "to destroy our lives." Given the world we're all living in, that of course is dangerous talk. 

For the record, we don't doubt Compagno's sincerity for a moment. Here's what she was talking about:   

Last week, Terry Moran described a report about the possible origin of Covid which he said he once prepared for ABC News. As Mediaite reports, Moran said this, along the way, about his own personal conclusion: 

Terry Moran Says ABC Gutted His Covid Lab Leak Investigation...

[...]

Moran pitched the story to Nightline, which producers accepted enthusiastically, and said the resulting investigation included interviews with molecular virologists and former Trump administration officials. He also claimed the reporting “broke a little news” that the Wuhan lab had received funding from the Chinese military, citing information from a U.S. intelligence source.

Moran said his reporting left him personally believing a natural origin was “probably a little bit more likely,” while adding that he would not have been surprised if the virus had escaped from a laboratory.

“But I didn’t reach that conclusion. I just laid it out,” he said.

Maybe a lab leak, more probably not. That was Moran's impression at the time.   

Needless to say, that part of Moran's recollection wasn't mentioned by Compagno or by anyone else last night. On the Gutfeld! program, the Covid virus will only be said to have come from the lab. Gutfeld! viewers are constantly told that everybody "knows" that.   

According to Moran, he created this report for Nightline in early 2021. On the very day it was slated to air, the report was heavily editedwas made "incomprehensible," Moran saysby ABC's lawyers and standards officials.   

Moran said he was told that the lawyers and standards officials had run the original transcript by Dr. Fauci. He stressed the fact that he doesn't know that for a fact.

At this site, we're not sure why the network officials wouldn't have done that. Moran isn't sure that they did.   

Moran didn't like the "incomprehensible" finished product. His judgment may have been good. But that podcast presentation by Moran formed the basis for the second segment of last night's Gutfeld! program. In the first segment, the obedient panelists wasted everyone's time pretending to discuss the latest pointless remarks by the irrelevant Hunter Biden, who's easy for MAGA to mock.

With respect to Dr. Fauci, Compagno engaged in her typical dangerous talk. These were the mutts on hand as she sounded off: 

Gutfeld!: Tuesday, August 18, 2026  
Rob O'Neill: Former member, Seal Team Six  
Kat Timpf: Comedian 
Tom Shillue: Guest host, comedian 
Emily Compagno: Co-host, Outnumbered  
Rich Vos: Comedian

We ourselves know Rich from long ago. We think of him as a very good guya very good guy who has no earthly business being on a major "cable news" program, pretending to discuss major, life-and-death topics.   

As for the ongoing attacks on Dr. Fauci manufactured by mutts like these, we direct your attention to the following recent articles:   

On August 16, print editions of the New York Times contained the following article. Online, the article was published three days earlier:   

Trump Officials Falsely Connect Covid Vaccines to Miscarriage   

Trump administration officials and other prominent Republicans falsely suggested this week that Covid-19 vaccines were linked to miscarriage, seizing misleadingly on old text messages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s that were recently released by Republican senators.

In January 2021, when Covid vaccines had just been released, Dr. Fauci and other Biden administration officials discussed the limitations of the data then available about vaccination during pregnancy, as well as the theoretical risks for pregnant women based on information available at the time. Since then, studies of hundreds of thousands of women have shown that Covid vaccination is not linked to an increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth or preterm birth.

While those specific conversations were not public, health officials did not hide the uncertainty in early 2021. There was limited data because of a longstanding practice of excluding pregnant women from clinical trials. What was known then was based on women who happened to become pregnant while enrolled in a vaccine trial and on animal testing.

But pregnant women were becoming critically ill and dying from Covid infections, so the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that they talk to their doctors about vaccination, weighing the known risks of Covid itself—which, along with severe illness and death, included miscarriage and stillbirth—and the vaccine safety data that existed.   

The report continued from there. This is not the topic which Moran discussed, but it was an examination of the misrepresentations which have continued to emerge from within the MAGA worldand from the profoundly irresponsible if well-intentioned Compagno.   

On August 15, The Atlantic published a lengthy, nuanced report about the irresponsible MAGA behavior. We won't attempt to walk you through the whole thing, but Daniel Engber's lengthy report started like this:

Anthony Fauci’s Group Chat Is Making People Lose Their Minds

...Senator Ron Johnson announced this week that he’d retrieved tens of thousands of messages and hundreds of voicemails from Fauci’s government-issued device and made them fully searchable. In the meantime, though, Johnson has shared just a single set of texts: a Fauci group chat that he considered so explosive in its implications that it had to be released forthwith. “This is a blockbuster revelation,” the senator said on Tuesday. The public had to know.

The texts in question were from a short exchange that Fauci had with two other public-health officials—former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky—in January 2021. Murthy had asked whether either of them knew of “any data or theoretical reason” why an expectant mother might choose to vaccinate early versus late in pregnancy. Walensky answered no, that this was all “data free.”   

Fauci agreed, but a couple of hours later, he followed up. After asking around, he’d heard about a theoretical concern: A second dose of the vaccine could lead to fever and cytokine storm—an overactivation of the immune system, also linked to COVID itself—which in turn might lead to early-term miscarriage. In an interview that Fauci gave just one week later, he alluded to the need for balanced thinking on vaccination during pregnancy, given the lack of clinical-trial data. But he noted that thousands of expectant mothers had already gotten shots by then, and no issues had arisen. “We’ve got to be careful,” he said, but “I would rather take my chances with a vaccine than getting infected while I’m pregnant.”   

Fauci’s critics now assert that this was tantamount to murder. Fauci knew that COVID shots were killing babies, they argue—he said so in a private text—and then he went out and pretended that the shots were safe. Representative Anna Paulina Luna called this “a crime against humanity and the most evil thing that could’ve ever been done.” Meghan McCain demanded that the 85-year-old be handcuffed, perp-walked, and put in a jail cell for the rest of his life. (“This is not hyperbole,” she noted, rather unconvincingly.) Senator Roger Marshall called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the matter—either that, he said, or “a full 9/11-style commission.”

...In fact, the new material is unremarkable, unrevealing, and—worst of all—maddeningly irrelevant to the many, far more interesting questions that still surround one of our most important public-health leader’s behavior and decision making during the pandemic...

And so on, at length, from there. Crazy accusation is easy. Establishing facts is hard.

(For additional Republican bungling, click here.)

As Mark Twain once never said, accusations of murder get halfway around the world before nuanced assessment can get its boots on. And then, up will jump the well-intentioned Compagno with her latest irresponsible language, toying with life and death on a mutt-rich national stage.  

Our own Blue American journalists refuse to discuss the conduct of this "cable news channel." All too plainly, any society which functions this way has already become a failed state.

Tomorrow: Woke/Not Especially Fruitful


TUESDAY: Rosie O'Donnell took Kimmel's place!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2026

Timpf sat in for Gutfeld: We didn't know that Rosie O'Donnell was guest hosting for Jimmy Kimmel last night.  You can watch her 15-minute monolog here. We're not even sure we endorse her approach, but she was just plain very good. 

We had a different reaction to a different guest hosting spotto Kat Timpf's appearance on last night's Gutfeld! program.   

Timpf didn't seem especially comfortable in this relatively unfamiliar role. That's completely understandable. What we find hard to grasp is the role that was played in last night's program by this silly, sad, stupid "news report" in the New York Post

In our view, it's amazing to think that a major newspaper clutters its pages with inane reports of that type. It's even more amazing to think that a person like Timpf would then decide to devote some time to the topicwould do so while hosting the nation's third most watched "cable news" program.   

To see the joke the guest host fashioned, you can just click here. To their credit, the audience seems puzzled by what it has heard. Timpf then tries to explain what made her joke so hilarious, with no apparent success.

About ten minutes later, Timpf thanks Kennedy, the former VJ who served as one of her guests, for "appreciating" her joke. She then explains the joke all over again, saying that she had been "excited about it all day."

(By the way, yes! That was the disordered former congressman, George Santos, serving as another of Timpf's guests. After President Trump commuted his federal prison sentence, he of course became a semi-regular Gutfeld! guest.)

The Fox News Channel pretends that Gutfeld! is a comedy show. In reality, it's a very aggressive corporate messaging programa tribal propaganda vehicle which hides behind a comedy veneer.   

The program peddles the most divisive kind of tribal propaganda. Our question would be this:  

What does it mean when people with such peculiar sensibilities are sent out, night after night, to pretend to be conducting news discussions on a very heavily watched American "cable news" show?   

Obviously, there's no such thing as a perfect news discussion. At present, Gutfeld!, like every Fox News program, is pretending to be conducting discussions of some creature called "socialism."

There's no such thing as a perfect news show. But what might a sensible person say about a primetime "cable news" program like this?

CRAZY/PRESUMABLY DANGEROUS: Strait talk from the commander in chief!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2026

Silence from the press: How good a film was Crazy/Beautiful? We can't say we remember. 

It had been mentioned to us (as the director's predecessor to Blue Crush) by [WE NO LONGER MENTION NAMES], a film critic for the Washington Post and a good and decent person. 

It was "an unusually observant film about adolescence," Roger Ebert said in his three-star review. Having said that, whatever!

As we noted yesterday, we thought of the film's unusual title when we read Mediaite's account of what Senator Cassidy told Jake Tapper this weekend.   

On Sunday, Cassidy had appeared on CNN's State of the Union. This exchange had occurred:  

TAPPER (8/16/26): President Trump also claimed that the combined MMR vaccine could be, quote, "quite lethal." He referred to it as sort of like a nuclear weapon. 

He said he's seen proof that the size of combined vaccines are comparable to what he called a bottle of soda, a large vat, or what seemingly looks like gallons being pumped into a child's body.

You said someone needs to stand up to, quote, "crazy/stupid things being said that undermine faith in immunization," unquote. Is President Trump saying some of these, quote, "crazy/stupid things?"

CASSIDY: Yes. That's a crazy/stupid thing.   

We've replaced the comma with a slash. Cassidy spoke of statements about an important vaccine which were "crazy/stupid."  

At this site, we prefer to avoid the insulting term "stupid." For obvious reasons, we'd also avoid the colloquial term "crazy" when real issues of possible mental illness seemed to be involved.   

That said, the nation continues to drive at high speed toward a cliff, with its journalists refusing to report or discuss what seems to be right there before them. 

We've run out of things to say about that unyielding silence on the part of the upper-end press corps. But as for the president, we learn today that the world has now been gifted with this:   

Trump Declares Strait of Hormuz as ‘NEW US Territory’ in Bonkers Truth Social Post   

President Donald Trump proclaimed on Tuesday that the Strait of Hormuz is a “new U.S. territory,” as the war in Iran nears the six-month mark.

An image shared to Trump’s Truth Social account showed the crucial waterway and strategic oil pipeline circled on a map and emblazoned with the words “NEW U.S. Territory.”  

Tom Durante's report for Mediaite continues from there. To visit the president's Truth Social post, you can just click this

Over at Mediaite, the headline writer went with the jangly term "bonkers." We'd describe the president's declaration as HIGHLY DISTURBING / PRESUMABLY VERY DANGEROUS. 

We repeat the point we've made before. The president will remain in office for more than two years after November's elections. There's no way of knowing what he might decide to do in those two-plus years.   

The silence continues within the press. They simply won't tell you about it.

As frequently noted: We regard a severe mental illness as an actual illness. We regard any such illness as a tragic human event.


MONDAY: Has anyone ever explained that flight?

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2026

Ossoff gets it right: Has anyone ever explained the tolling of the bell which seemed to occur when President Trump snuck off one plane out of Turkey, finding his way to another?   

Was actual danger involved? If not, why did the president subject himself to potential ridicule by sneaking away on a catering truck? 

If so, what the bell explains the trio of apparently minor aides who accompanied him on his flight, with Rubio, Bessent and Miller all left on the doomed jetliner. along with much of the press? 

Speaking of the press, has anyone ever tried to explain the call of the roll on those flights? Hegseth yes, Rubio no? What was up with that?

At any rate, executive assistant Natalie Harp was one of the intended survivors. According to the Wall Street Journal, Harp "plays an integral role in Trump’s Truth Social activity." She frequently "logs onto the president’s account—at times outside of normal work hours—and posts batches of Trump-approved messages," the Journal reported in May

Yesterday, Jon OssoffFox has him up by 13 in Georgiaelectrified Blue America with an angry insinuation about the president and Harp. 

For an initial report by Mediaite, you can just click here. We'll suggest that you look at the videotape of Ossoff's remarks. As shown, his angry presentation starts like this:

OSSOFF (8/16/26): There's something uniquely despicable about lying a nation into war. Treating citizens as fools, and those who serve as pawns.

Aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, they've now been at sea for 240-plus days without a port call. It's a Navy record. And still—and still

And still, they serve with excellence. 

And still, they serve with excellence! God bless the sailors, Marines, aviators and all aboard the United States Ship Abraham Lincoln. 

AUDIENCE: Cheers 

His insinuation came after that. We're not saying it was wrong.   

But first, he remembered to praise the men and women who serve. He had us as a very major force right there, when he (very convincingly) did that.

A favorite quote: A favorite quote from My Antonia:

"Ain't it wonderful, Jim, how much people can mean to each other?"


CRAZY/NOT SO BEAUTIFUL: There the president went again!

MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2026

On horseback with General Washington: By now, it's a regular weekend event, and who really knows? It may be intended to draw attention away from everything else!

At any rate, there the president(s) went again! On Truth Social, you could see our nation's father(s) on horseback:

Trump Rides Horses With George Washington and Floats Big 2028 ‘Win’ in AI Posting Spree

President Donald Trump went on a bit of a posting spree on Saturday afternoon, with the flurry including the president posting multiple AI pictures of himself alongside George Washington. Trump also trotted out one of his go-to troll moves by hinting he will win the 2028 election—a claim which his liberal critics loathe and often point out can’t happen because of the Constitution.

The report by Sean James continues from there, with a trio of pictures included. One picture shows the sitting president back in the saddle again, riding next to General Washington.

This has become standard weekend fare. Who knows? It may be intended to draw attention away from headlines like this headline concerning the latest crazy presidential conduct concerning a major policy issue:

GOP Senator Absolutely Destroys Trump’s Recent Comments Casting Doubt on Vaccines: ‘That’s a Crazy, Stupid Thing!’

A Republican Senator is lashing out at President Donald Trump over his recent claim that “nothing bad can happen” by splitting up the childhood vaccine schedule.

Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) ripped the president for comments made during an executive order signing Tuesday in which he said he wants to split the MMR measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into separate shots. Despite vehement objections from top physician organizations, Trump falsely claimed the combined MMR shot could be “quite lethal,” and added that “separately, it looks like they are not at all lethal.”

[...]

“You’ve said someone needs to stand up to ‘crazy, stupid things’ being said that undermine faith and immunization,” Tapper told Cassidy. “Is President Trump saying some of these crazy stupid things?”

“Yeah,” Cassidy said. “That’s a crazy, stupid thing!”

Way back in 2001, Crazy/Beautiful was a generally well-regarded film about teen culture. This past week, we moved on to "Crazy/Stupid" in the realm of child health care as a pair of men with fairly obvious mental health issues pushed their peculiar beliefs and ludicrous claims on a rapidly failing nation.

It was "Crazy/Stupid," Cassidy said, finally finding his voice. Of course, he was hardly the first observer to express that general view.

Earlier in the week, the editorial board of the Washington Post had described Trump's claims about the MMR vaccine as "irresponsible, possibly deadly." Live and direct from Murdoch World, the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal had offered this:

Trump Jabs at Vaccines for Children

The U.S. is enduring its worst measles outbreak in years, but that isn’t stopping President Trump from spreading vaccine skepticism. He overruled his advisers, press reports say, by issuing Monday’s executive order urging Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. to limit proven childhood immunizations.

The President’s declaration of “Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations” largely follows a much-disputed HHS report in January that advised fewer vaccines on the childhood schedule. Mr. Trump likes to paint a golden sheen on everything, but his proposed regimen isn’t based on rigorous science, or really any science at all.

[...]

The order also proposes splitting the MMR into “three separate single-disease shots,” to be administered at separate medical visits. Mr. Trump claimed without evidence Monday that the MMR vaccine in its current form could be “quite lethal.” Is he trying to scare parents into not inoculating children?

And so on from there.

The New York Times has largely taken itself out of the editorial business. That said, the Times provided these punishing fact-check pieces:

Fact-Checking the Trump Administration’s Claims About Vaccines

President Trump signed an executive order on Monday calling for scaling back the number of vaccinations American children receive. At an Oval Office event announcing the order, Mr. Trump suggested falsely that vaccines were linked to autism and that the combined measles, mumps and rubella shot could be lethal, among other claims.

While it is not clear yet whether the order has any legal power, experts said they were concerned that the statements from Mr. Trump, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others at the event would sow further doubt and confusion about the safety of immunizations. 
(For full report, click here.)

Should the M.M.R. Vaccine Be Split Into Three Separate Shots?

[...]

In an Oval Office signing ceremony, the president made a frightening and unsubstantiated claim about the combination shot. “Together, there could be a possibility they’re quite lethal.”

Researchers have not linked the combination M.M.R. shot to a risk of death, and there is no evidence that it is dangerous or that splitting it into its three components is any safer or more effective, vaccine experts said. Combination shots for the diseases have been used in the United States since 1971, and were introduced only after careful comparison against individual shots. They have been given to hundreds of millions of children.

What’s more, separate vaccines for measles, mumps or rubella have not been available in the United States for many years. Vaccine manufacturers said it would take a minimum of five to 10 years for them to be tested and made available.

[...]

“It’s just simply more confusion for the poor parents,” Dr. Edwards said. “And it’s just showing the world that our health system and our H.H.S. and our president are totally uninformed,” she said, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services.   
(For full report, click this.)   

We don't like to use the word "stupid" here. That said, how "Crazy/Not So Beautiful" were the Trump/Kennedy remarks?

Major news orgs don't like to report the astonishing size of the president's apparent mental / cognitive disorder. You may have to go to a site like Mediaite to get a report like this:

Trump Compares Common Vaccine to a Nuclear Weapon

President Donald Trump compared the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine to a nuclear bomb being set off inside a kid’s body during a Tuesday interview on Real America’s Voice.

The president championed the new childhood vaccine guidelines he and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. debuted Monday, with Trump claiming the old schedule was “too big” and “too much” at one time. He then talked about the MMR vaccine.

“If you give them separately — the M, the M, and the R, it’s fine,” Trump said. “When you put them together, they’re sort of like a nuclear weapon, according to some. So why wouldn’t you give them separately? What’s hurt by giving them separately?”

 [...]

Trump told Root the government had previously recommended “pumping this massive amount of fluid” into kids which looked “like a Coca-Cola bottle.”

“I don’t care if it’s water, it’s too much,” Trump said. 

According to the sitting president, an amount of vaccine "like a Coca-Cola bottle" is currently being pumped into each child's arm. The shots are "sort of like a nuclear weapon," he added. 

What was the source for these remarkable claims? What else? His source was "according to some!"

The lunacy of the president's claims might almost seem to suggest the possibility of a major cognitive problem. In our view, a different set of mental disorders is put on display by the major news orgs which still refuse to report and discuss the obvious fact that something seems to be wrong with this manwith a man who will remain in office, surrounded by his nut-ball staff, for more than two years even after the mid-term elections.

Is something wrong with President Trump? It's pretty much as you like it! Speaking on Long Island on Friday, there he (not so beautifully) went again:

Trump Boasts ‘Young Beautiful Girls’ Come to White House to Thank Him for Lowering Crime

President Donald Trump repeatedly boasted Friday that “young beautiful girls” have been showing up at the White House to thank him for lowering crime.

The cringeworthy comment came as Trump spoke to law enforcement officials on Long Island while touting his administration’s crime record...   

[...]

“These young, beautiful girls, these young, beautiful girls, these young, beautiful girls in the White House,” the president repeated. “You know, they come in. Now, I’m not supposed to say ‘beautiful,’ but what the hell?

“These young, these gorgeous, beautiful girls, they’re young. They wanna be safe, and they come, ‘Mr. President, may I speak to you?'”

“Yes,” Trump said, referring to how he responds to these “young beautiful girls.”

“Thank you, sir! Thank you!” the president recalls them saying. “I said, ‘Why are you thanking me?’ ‘Because a year and a half ago, I was afraid to leave—I was afraid to open the door of my apartment, and now I walk to the White House every morning, and I have absolutely no— Thank you, sir!'” 

There the president (not so beautifully) seems to have gone again! Is it possible that something's wrong with this rather powerful guy? 

At this point, we're barely scratching the surface here of the points of concern which may get swept away by AI pictures of the commander in chief riding along, on a charger, next to General Washington. But, for whatever reason, our major orgs in Blue America are going to duck the question of mental illness / cognitive decline "until the last dog dies."

That said, Blue America is also struggling as we start our week of reports. 

"Woke One was crazy," AOC said. What could she have meant by that?  

Tomorrow: We've wondered about this ourselves