CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 – July 30, 2026

Max Miller

• Max Miller is treating his response to these allegations like a political campaign by returning rhetorical fire at his ex-wife and portraying himself as the victim.

  • The only thing Miller and his ex-wife agree on, it seems, is that the daughter is a victim, too. The disagreement is over who is the perpetrator.

• The fighter mentality could work with loyal supporters who believe he’s being mistreated or that the allegations are unfounded or unsubstantiated.

  • However, I think a lot of people, Independents among them, will hear him and ask, “Where’s the compassion?” If in fact your ex-wife, the daughter of a sitting U.S. Senator, struggles with mental health issues, why are you so viciously and publicly attacking her rather than offering to help?

How is this different than Platner?

• Democrats defended Platner. I don’t hear any Republicans defending Miller.

• Most Democrats sat idly by – some with national ambitions actively campaigned for Graham Platner – hoping it would be yesterday’s news and he would win in November. It wasn’t until the accusations and allegations intensified, getting worse with each reveal, that he was forced out.

  • Where this is different is, polls showed that Platner was competitive in a head-to-he with Susan Collins, whereas Max Miller is vulnerable.

  • His district is now an R+5. It leans Republican, but it’s not guaranteed Republican in the aftermath of these allegations.

• I would assume, I would hope, that a coalition of level-headed Republicans, and frightened Republicans who don’t want to lose this seat, are working behind the scenes to encourage Miller to withdraw.

  • Doing so publicly, when he is so defiant, will only make him dig in his heels further.

CNN midterm polling

• I’m not going to sugar coat this, a lot of things are working against Republicans: it’s a midterm election cycle with a Republican in the White House, polling shows Americans of all partisan and non-partisan stripes are frustrated with the cost of living.

  • But there’s a lot working for Republicans, too. Re-redistricting could yield a few more safe seats. On the policy front, sealing the border, extending the broad-based tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, adding additional cuts like no tax on tips and Social Security, those are popular.

  • What’s not popular is the Democratic Party. Their favorability and unfavorability ratings are almost identical to that of Republicans. In fact, less people view Democrats favorable than Republicans

  • There’s also this strain of socialism dominating the conversation among Democrats – 34 percent of which self-identified as democratic socialists in the CNN poll.

• But the election will be less about what have you done and more about what are you doing and what will you do. That’s where the president and the party are struggling.

  • The president can tackle this head on with his unique ability to drive a message – right now, though, he’s choosing not to. He’s either preoccupied, uninterested, or biding his time.

Incumbents being dispatched – Republicans and Democrats. Anger among the electorate.

Party that gets things done

Stop Trump. Then what? Dog that catches the car.

Musk’s PAC money

• Musk’s threat to start a third-party was a man throwing a temper tantrum.

  • His decision to pony up and help Republicans get out the vote is him coming to the conclusion that his money is much more effective than his mouth.

• He can help – through PAC expenditures – to motivate Republicans who are not as motivated as Democrats to vote in this midterm and I welcome that, especially if that includes a ton of ads highlighting the dangerous sprint toward socialism within the base of the Democrat party.

Republicans already have a massive cash advantage over Democrats

I’m Pete Seat and this… is Right on Cue.

Walter Isaacson, writing ahead of America’s 250th birthday and nodding to that famous exchange between John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin, asked a simple question: “When there are so many forces dedicated to dividing us, how can we best hang together?”

At least in the excerpt I read, he did not really answer it. So I’ve been thinking about it myself.

But first, who is attempting to divide us?

Well, we are pretty good at doing that on our own. Republicans try to divide Democrats. Democrats try to divide Republicans. Internal attempts at division are rampant and continue apace. The external efforts, though, are what worry me most.

Our largest and most dangerous geopolitical adversaries want America weaker, angrier, more distracted, and less confident.

The journalist Henry Luce famously called the 20th century the American Century. China, more than anyone, would like the 21st century, and every century after it, to belong to Beijing. They want our 250^th to be the beginning of the end of our Century and the beginning without an end of theirs.

To achieve this, China uses money, infrastructure, coercion, and influence to pull developing nations out of our orbit and into theirs. Russia does its part to divide our attention and exhaust our will by invading sovereign neighbors. North Korea and Cuba survive by opposing the American-led order.

While their strategies and tactics are somewhat different, all of them understand something important. They don’t have to defeat America if they can convince Americans to defeat each other.

That is why misinformation and disinformation matter. That is why foreign adversaries exploit every cultural fight, every political grievance, every institutional failure, every moment when Americans stop seeing each other as neighbors and start seeing each other as enemies. They take one of our greatest strengths, our diversity of thought, and try to weaponize it against us.

Why do people fall for it so easily? Why do so many Americans trust whatever crosses their phone screen if it confirms what they already want to believe? That’s a topic for another day. For today, I keep coming back to Isaacson’s question: How do we hang together?

The honest answer is that I don’t know if there is one big, satisfying answer anymore.

We have allowed every wedge issue to divide us, every cultural flashpoint to separate us, and every political milestone to expose our differences instead of reminding us what we still share.

But maybe the answer does not have to be big. Maybe it starts smaller.

We don’t have to agree on everything to understand, I hope, that America’s success is better than America’s failure.

We do not have to like every politician, every policy, or every election result to recognize that China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, among others, are not rooting for one American faction over another.

They are rooting against all of us.

And until we remember that, our adversaries will keep pouring gas on the fire. Because they know something we seem to forget: A divided America is easier to weaken. A united America is much harder to beat.

I’m Pete Seat and that… was Right on Cue.

CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 – July 17, 2026

White House Helipad

• I think the real question here is: would people prefer the president be transported in nearly 50-year-old helicopters rather than the perfectly good, practically brand new, ones that we’ve already paid for and have been collecting dust and not being used as intended since being contracted in 2014 and delivered up through 2024 because their powerful engines scorch the grass on the South Lawn?

  • The helipad is necessary for practical reasons related to security and preservation of a national landmark.

You would rather inconvenience him, motorists, residents, of Washington, Virginia, and Maryland, by making him drive everywhere?

Beautification Projects

Is he too focused on these?

• The job of the president requires juggling plates, swallowing fire, and taming lions all before noon - every day. It’s a mix of issues you seek to fix and issues you’re forced to fix.

  • Take the reflecting pool as an example. The Obama Administration spent $34 million, double what the Trump Administration has spent, to repair cracks and remove algae. The cracks and the algae both came back in less than a year. Now the Trump Administration is trying to do something about it.

  • When I hear complaints about this and other projects it sounds like folks are saying no maintenance, no upkeep, no upgrades, just keep the status quo, keep everything as is and let it fall into disrepair because they don’t want Trump to get credit for the fix.

What do people think?

• That tends to be subjective: either based on partisanship or personal aesthetic preferences. On the partisan side, it’s a proxy for ‘do you like or dislike Trump?”

  • In fact, in a Washington Post/ABC/Ipsos poll in April, 4 percent of Democrats approved of the ballroom - 5 percent approved of Trump. 20 percent of Republicans disapproved of the ballroom - 15 percent disapproved of Trump.

• On the aesthetic side, I can tell you personally, I dislike the gold-plated Oval Office and Rose Garden accoutrements, I think they’re gaudy; I’ve never been a fan of the Qatari-gifted Air Force One due to security concerns and it’s putrid color scheme; but I’m a huge fan of the ballroom project, it’s a long overdue to the White House complex.

Additional Info

• We should take pride in our nation’s capital city and the Executive Mansion. Every president brings a personal touch, some more than others.

• The complaint here isn’t the politics or the optics, it’s that Democrats don’t want Trump to make any changes. They want his time to come and go and to never be reminded of him again. Every change he brings to the White House is a small reminder that he was there - and my Democrat friends can’t stand that.

• But I also know this: the longer you wait, the more it’s going to cost.

69 feet - so about 20 feet on the front and back
current version doesn’t need that same type of protection scorch grass
portable pads - roll em out
longer you wait, more it’s going to cost
EEOB

CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 – July 14, 2026

President Trump says his address on Thursday will focus on “free and fair elections”

• We have free and fair elections in the United States – I would say that both to my fellow Republicans and to Democrats.

  • To my fellow Republicans, the election was not rigged when our side lost; and to Democrats, voters weren’t disenfranchised when you lost.

  • But it is also true that there is election fraud in this country. It is not as widespread as Republicans claim, nor is it non-existent or inconsequential as Democrats claim.

• The bigger point, though, is that there isn’t a lot that brings us together these days, but one thing that does bring us together, although we have different solutions to the problem, is wanting a president, an administration, a government, that is focused on the challenges we face in the moment and the challenges we’ll face in the future.

  • Continually relitigating the 2020 election, if that is in fact what he intends to do, is a distraction from the economy, from Iran, from gas prices, and from strengthening safeguards for this election.

• On the specifics of what he will say, I withhold judgement until I hear his words and see whatever evidence he produces.

  • A primetime presidential address carries weight. Most viewers will expect that he has something of great importance to share and anything that doesn’t clear that bar will leave people feeling like it was a bait and switch.

Iran/President Trump saying he abandoned tolling plan at urging of Gulf nations

• There aren’t many pressure points that move the Iranian regime.

  • The use of force is one, but they are willing to absorb a lot and willing to allow their own people to suffer a great deal.

  • The Strait of Hormuz is another pressure point – that’s why we have this back-and-forth volley on control, blockades, attacks and – the trial balloon of America imposing tolls.

• President Trump has used surprise demands and rapid shifts in rhetoric before. Sometimes that creates leverage. But Iran is a different kind of adversary. They mostly shrug at his threats and he’s clearly becoming increasingly frustrated by their antics.

  • Backing away from the toll was right. It upset allies, it risked undercutting our own argument that the Strait should remain open and free.

  • What makes a difference is hitting them militarily and choking off their oil exports while allowing vessels of allies and neutral nations to transit freely. For now, that’s got to be the play without hedging and without pausing.

ICE pausing most traffic stops following the deadly shootings in Maine and Texas

• Here’s what I know: after two fatal shootings in a week, in two different parts of the country, the administration recognizes there is a problem and a change needs to happen.

  • What I don’t know is whether these were a result of inadequate training, legitimate officer safety concerns, poor in-the-moment decision-making, or some combination thereof.

• Regardless, Americans shouldn’t have to choose between enforcing immigration law and expecting professional law enforcement. We should demand and expect both and pausing traffic stops to address the situation is a step in the right direction.

I’m Pete Seat and this is… Right on Cue.

In the hours following news that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham had suddenly passed away, there was an outpouring of grief - from President Trump, to current and former Republican colleagues, to current and former Democrat colleagues, too.

That might come as a shock. Democrats mourning the loss of a Republican—especially one so closely aligned with Trump—can feel abnormal in our current political environment.

But they knew where Graham was coming from because he was transparent about why he wanted to remain relevant and, frankly, there were times when his relevance benefited them.

From his viewpoint, he needed to be in the room to move the room. Sure, he could have spent the Trump years attacking Trump, becoming a fixture on cable news for a different reason and building a base of hyper-online followers who shared and commented on everything he said. But to him that wasn’t going to change policy.

To change policy, he needed to change minds. And to change minds, he needed allies—Republicans and Democrats.

Two of those allies, in a different political era, were John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The Three Amigos, they were called.

It was a time when bipartisan gangs of eight or twelve or sixteen could write legislation, build coalitions and sometimes muscle their plans through the Senate. They had real power.

Then the political era changed. The power balance shifted away from bipartisan coalitions and toward the man in the Oval Office—and Graham shifted accordingly.

Whenever a major issue was being debated—on television, on the Senate floor or behind closed doors—Graham found a way into the room. He didn’t care whether the room was filled with Republicans, included a handful of Democrats or had people in it that others in his party or the other party found repulsive.

He was there. That was how he built and maintained relevance.

He knew this: You have to show up. You have to deal with people as they are. And sometimes you have to make allies with people your own side can’t stand.

Some saw that as opportunism. Sometimes it probably was. But it was also an accurate read of how Washington works, how politics works, heck, how life works.

Having a pulse on Washington’s dynamics, understanding where the power had moved and knowing how to make himself a player in every era of his tenure is what made Lindsey Graham an institution within the institution.

I’m Pete Seat and that was Right on Cue.

Trying to get back on track-ish with posting notes. After all, you can see my iPad sitting there on the table and wonder what wordly treasures it contains. You’re in luck… those treasurers are below as written and prepared for CNN NewsNight with Abby Philly live in New York City on July 6, 2026. Panelists included Xochitl Hinojosa, Jason Rantz, Yemisi Egbewole, and Billy Binion.

CNN NEWSNIGHT – July 6, 2026

*Sorry this isn’t formatted as usual. Substack is not cooperating today.

New allegations against Graham Platner

· I don’t want to come across as callous about this – these are, of course, serious criminal allegations being made against Platner. But we are talking about the political implications because this is a highly coveted seat for both parties in the midterm election.

And on that front, the story beneath the headline is that a lot of Democrat backbenchers were calling Platner unqualified well before today. For example, Congressman Ritchie Torres tweeted, “I have no endorsement to rescind. Graham Platner should drop out.”

o That was a message not only to Platner, but directly to the folks with national ambitions, like Ro Khanna and Ruben Gallego, who stood by Platner. Khanna most famously, or infamously now, campaigned with Platner after the first round of allegations became public. Khanna put his chips on the table for this guy – and boy did he get burned.

· The second part of this is, Khanna and Gallego aside, Democrats might escape the worst of this. They now have the opportunity, assuming Platner drops out by Monday, then the state party can replace him by the 27th.

o I’ll lean on Chuck Todd’s snap analysis here and that is, the most formidable candidate against Susan Collins is “Generic Democrat.” I don’t know that the bar is that low – but I have to imagine whomever is selected, if someone is selected, will be better and have less baggage than Graham Platner.

Trump says he asked FIFA president for review of red card

· Well, you got me to care about soccer – at least for this segment. I’ve not watched a single minute or penalty kick of this World Cup – but it has been fun to watch the hoards of fans who traveled across an ocean to cheer on their national teams experience our people and our culture – from BBQ to Buc-ees to air conditioning. What’s not been fun is the mass hysteria of the past 24 hours or so.

o First, the red card against our player was an egregiously wrong decision that didn’t follow proper protocol. That was the opinion of just about everyone outside of Belgium until a few hours ago when the Union of European Football Associations chimed in, claiming the suspension of the suspension was “unprecedented.”

o Which leads to the second point: wrong. There is clear precedent for what FIFA did. And we’re not talking about 1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s precedent. We’re talking about this World Cup. FIFA invoked the very same rule to suspend two matches of Ronaldo’s three-match suspension until after this World Cup. Funny enough, UEFA didn’t go into meltdown mode when the beneficiary was from Portugal.

§ And that gets to what this is really about: Europe cannot stand that the United States is playing well. In their minds, soccer is their sport. And look, historically, they have a point. Five of the last seven World Cup winners have been European countries – Germany, Spain, Italy, and France twice. Say what you will about France and surrendering in war but put them in a World Cup and suddenly they’re a superpower.

Tried to connect dots that have no connection. FIFA was already reviewing the red card decision before President Trump called.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz comments on FIFA call

· Everyone wants a competitive advantage. We want one by having our best player in the match. Belgium wants one by not having our best player in the match – that’s why they filed an appeal that was swiftly rejected because they lack standing other than wanting an advantage over us.

o Senator Cruz: is there any evidence of the president “getting rid of that ridiculous red card”? No.

Is any victory tonight tainted? Peace Prize again

· Were any of Portugal’s victories tainted because of the decision to allow Ronaldo to play?

o Barry Bonds has an asterisk because he cheated. Where was the cheating here? Where were the rules broken here? The only rule or process broken was utilizing slow motion instant reply before issuing the red card.

o Anyone who believes it’s tainted or there is an asterisk is saying so because their either can’t stand Donald Trump and are politicizing this; or their from Europe and can’t stand that we’re doing well.

Key takeaways from WH Smithsonian report

· I think this is a well-timed conversation because there was Cato/Morning Consult poll that showed almost half of Americans – 46 percent – and nearly two-thirds of Gen Z (61 percent) didn’t know what the 250th was all about. They didn’t know that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Shame on all of us. Shame on all of us that so many of our fellow Americans didn’t know what that day meant and represented.

· I can’t speak to the Smithsonian because I haven’t been in years. But I can say, from what I have seen, museums across this country are overemphasizing our bad days and deemphasizing our good days. Too many museums seem to have gone out of their way to shine a light on our warts and pretend there is little good in the American experience.

o Tell that to my parents. Both of whom are immigrants. I’m the only child of immigrants. My dad came from England when he was four; my mom from what was then the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, led by the communist party. They didn’t come here because America was irredeemable. The very opposite is true. They came here because it’s the land of opportunity.

o The same goes for all these immigrants that Democrats put front and center in their campaigns – legal and illegal. They’re coming to America, or trying to come to America, because it’s far better than the place from which they come.

· So maybe it’s not all that surprising that people didn’t know what the 250th was about. Nor is it all that surprising that there is a patriotism gap in this country. But we don’t educate, nor do we close that gap, by telling one side of the story – the bad side. Instead do we what this report says, “document and share the achievements and failures of the Nation and the extraordinary men and women of every color and creed who shaped its course.”

o That shouldn’t be too much to ask.

The patriotism gap between Republicans and Democrats – Republicans tend to be proud of their country, no matter the circumstances of the moment, whereas for Democrats it ebbs and flows depending on whether a Democrat is in The White House (but often times, that’s not even enough for the maximalists in their party).

Claire Valdez, one of the Democratic Socialists nominated two weeks ago here in New York, posted on X on July 4th, that the “system is rigged,” and called on people to “fight for liberation from Palestine to Puerto Rico.”

So when they get a hold of the arts – whether that be a theatre or a museum – they tend to use it as a political platform to attack the people and the ideas they don’t like.

The key findings of the report are damning. They claim there is no major exhibit dedicated to our Founding Era – including Washington, Jefferson, and the Continental Congress. They note Independence Day was not marked either in 2025 or 2026 even thought the National Museum of American History was open. Those are just a few of the findings.

Aftermath of Trump report on financial disclosures in office; NYT reporting on Trump crypto coin

· Believe it or not, I watch the show when I’m not on, so I know you led with this topic three nights in a row last week. So on the off chance we might discuss it again tonight, I started asking around. And what I gathered is it’s not breaking through with most Republicans.

o For those who are aware, their reaction is pretty straightforward: Trump was a businessman before he became president. He knew how to make money. That is baked into how Republican voters see him. And it was priced in to voting for him in ’16, ’20, and ’24.

· Now, there are legitimate ethical questions. I’m not dismissing that. But we have to separate the legal question from the political question. Where is the illegality? If the answer is, “Well, it looks improper,” then we’re in much more subjective territory.

o Everyone has a different definition of improper, and when it comes to Trump, that definition tends to be based on partisanship. Republicans look at this and shrug. Democrats look at this and see a five-alarm fire. That may be a real debate in Washington, or at this table, but based on the folks I talked to, it’s not moving opinion.

Can’t let every Tom, Dick, and Harry get membership to the club.

Maybe Congress needs to act.

From NYT reporting: “…the trading surge early this year did not reflect a change in strategy, but rather stemmed from a favorable court ruling that freed up hundreds of millions of dollars for the president to invest.

“Interviews and documents reviewed by The Times also support the Trump Organization’s contention that the president cannot place trades.

“Mr. Trump’s brokerage firms have authority over the accounts, the documents show, and are prohibited from accepting trade requests from him and his family. The firms also cannot provide the family notice of trades ahead of time, and The Times found no indication that the president had directed the firms to trade for him, or that he had used inside information to trade.”

Trump comments on crypto

· Personally, I don’t feel sorry for anyone who bought a Trump coin. Crypto is a scam – it has been since day one. The only people who promote crypto are those who buy it, figure out it’s a scam, and realize the only way to get their money back is to convince some other sucker they need to buy crypto. Or it’s the people who make coins and make money off the transactions.

o Is it a currency? A commodity? A security? A collectible? If you don’t know what it is, why would you buy it?

o Furthermore, adopting crypto as a currency hurts the American dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Why would we want that? It also makes it harder for us to impose sanctions when terrorists and criminals are using crypto.

I’m Pete Seat and this is… Right on Cue.

The SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voter registrations, passed the House in April 2025 by a healthy margin - 220 to 208, four of those yes’s were Democrats.

The SAVE America Act, an expanded version, which includes a voter ID mandate at all polling location nationwide, passed the House in February of this year by a smaller margin.

All along the way, President Trump has been cajoling the Senate do the same saying he wants to sign the SAVE Act and now the SAVE America Act into law. Or does he?

On the surface, yes, the president is talking about it all. the. time. SAVE Act this. SAVE Act that. He told Congress he wouldn’t sign a reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without the SAVE Act. It didn’t work. Section 702 lapsed.

He’s currently refusing to sign a bipartisan so-called housing affordability bill until the SAVE Act hits his desk. The Senate still isn’t budging saying they don’t have the votes to break a filibuster nor a desire to nuke the filibuster fearing the precedent it would set.

I have no reason to doubt to president’s desires here - he has a long rap sheet of attacking what he believes to be a lack of integrity in our voting systems.

But I don’t think that’s his play. I think the SAVE Act is Trump’s scapegoat.

Let’s not sugarcoat this: the November elections are probably going to be bad for Republicans. History tells us that. Polling tells us that. Things are headed in the direction of bleak. That doesn’t mean it’s a foregone conclusion- but the smart money is on Republican losses… and who will be to blame?

Trump.

How can Trump avoid that fate?

By having something to point to as the *real* reason for losing.

He has framed the SAVE America Act as the only thing that stands between this moment and a stolen and rigged election in November.

With the SAVE America Act in place it becomes all the more difficult for him to undermine the credibility of the election results. Without it though, he can cry foul and redirect the blame to Congress, namely the Senate.

So rather than the cyclical nature of politics, or suppressed turnout from the Republican base without Trump’s name on the ballot, or the anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation, he can say, “No, this wouldn’t have happened had you passed the SAVE America Act.”

I’m Pete Seat & that was Right on Cue.

Below are my notes as prepared for the BBC’s The Context USA on Friday, June 26, 2026. I appeared live for the full hour alongside Democratic strategist Doug Farrar.

BBC THE CONTEXT USA – June 26, 2026

Venezuela

• For all the criticism of cuts that the Trump Administration has made to foreign aid and assistance – some of which I have criticized myself – the speed at which we have responded to Venezuela, with our cash and expertise, shows that America’s humanitarian heart is still beating.

  • It also shows the importance placed by this Administration on our own hemisphere.

  • Venezuela is a country that was once the 4^th most prosperous on earth. Then, under the dictatorial leadership of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Madura, that changed. The economy collapsed. The citizens suffered. The country became a narcotrafficking state.

  • President Trump made a bold move in plucking Maduro out of Venezuela and bringing him to justice in New York; and now we’re making sure that bold move was not for nothing by doing what we can, alongside partners from this continent and the European continent, to search, rescue, and hopefully rebuild.

Strait of Hormuz

• The ship in question was traveling along a route designated by the UN’s International Maritime Organization. The IRGC stated very clearly that it would be “unacceptable” and “dangerous” for any vessel to utilize such a route and that all passage should be coordinated directly with Iran. Normally I would argue that we ignore Iran’s saber-rattling.

  • But in this case, read the Memorandum of Understanding. It states, “Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.”

• Did the UN understand the language of the MOU differently than Iran on this point? Did this UN agency goof up? Those are questions we need to ask and get answered to diffuse any resumption or escalation of hostilities in the Strait.

John Bolton

• John Bolton is no hero; and he’s not saint.

  • Instead, he is a convicted felon who illegally retained, by his own admission, top secret classified information. And not only that – but top secret classified information that was accessed by Iranian hackers who got into Bolton’s personal email account.

• He was reckless. He was arrogant. And he endangered America and our interests with his cavalier attitude about keeping a personal diary of highly sensitive information so that he could one day write a book.

World Cup

• I am the worst person for this conversation because I find zero appeal in soccer – or football for our friends outside the United States.

  • I’m happy that others are happy about the World Cup. I’m pleased that soccer has the power to bring people together – whether that’s to watch the matches or drink their faces off; to each their own. Mostly importantly, I’m thrilled that with our hosting the tournament in the United States thousands and thousands of fans who would otherwise not travel here have been exposed to the power and promise of America.

Two former presidents. A globally respected statesman. Two former vice presidents. Two former Cabinet members. All Hoosiers. All their names stripped from the preamble of the 2026 Indiana Republican Party Platform.

Abraham Lincoln. Benjamin Harrison. Dick Lugar. Dan Quayle. Dan Coats. Mitch Daniels. Mike Pence.

Their names were first inserted into that opening paragraph in the 2018 Platform. I know this because I put them there in an effort to celebrate the national contributions of this “flyover state’s” exemplary talent.

At that time, more than a handful of Indiana residents were making their mark in President Donald Trump’s first term. Like Kurt Vonnegut famously said, “I don’t know what it is about Hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there.”

And indeed, there were Hoosiers doing very important things there and we wanted to recognize them and those who came before.

That opening paragraph remained intact in 2022 and again in the draft presented to delegates for ratification at last weekend’s convention in Fort Wayne. Unfortunately, overzealous editors (i.e. delegates) took a red pen to those names and amended them out.

Draft 2026 Platform Preamble

Final 2026 Platform Preamble

Why?

An argument could be made that more names should have been included. Four Hoosier vice presidents went unmentioned, as did former Cabinet members like Otis Bowen and William Ruckelshaus. This is a good problem to have.

But arguing that the names should be removed? The only reason I can surmise, having not heard the case made to the Resolutions Committee, is that some delegates could not tolerate the inclusion of names they no longer admire or respect.

The irony here is that many of the individuals who were removed worked for or with people these delegates do admire and respect. In some cases, the people they like wouldn’t be around had it not been for the people they dislike having hired or supported them along the path.

That history, though, is inconvenient and part of a troubling trend of pretending the present is all that matters and that history is only worth remembering when it conforms to an ideological persuasion.

Why can’t we be proud of those who represented us at the - literal - highest levels of government? Pride in where they came from does not imply agreement with everything they said or did. We can have disagreement within our ranks, can’t we?

A confident party is proud of its heritage, boasts of its people, and reminds us all that Hoosiers have much more history to make. In that sense, removing these names didn’t make the platform stronger and more inclusive. It made it smaller and more exclusive.

***

JIMENEZ: We’ve been following the breaking news that the United States and Iran have reached an agreement, but the details of which we are still waiting to find out. As we understand, though, a signing ceremony set for Friday in Switzerland.

I want to talk about this more with our political panel, CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, and Republican strategist and former White House spokesperson during the George W. Bush administration, Pete Seat.

Good to see you both. I just want to start by getting your thoughts on this breaking news. And, Pete, I want to start with you just to get your initial reaction to the announcement of a process moving forward.

PETE SEAT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re moving in the right direction, but withholding judgment until we know precisely what is in this agreement and that we know that the agreement is signed. And as you mentioned, there will be several days between today and when that hypothetically happens on Friday in Geneva. But I do want to say there is no deal worth calling a deal until we address the nuclear issue with the Iranians.

I wish that was part of this agreement that has been reached, according to President Trump, according to Pakistan, and according to the Iranian foreign or deputy foreign minister. We need to handle the nuclear issue. They cannot obtain, develop or possess a nuclear weapon in perpetuity. Until that is addressed and until we address their funding of terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no deal to speak of. This is just a step, I hope, in that direction.

JIMENEZ: And, Maria, I mean, look, Democrats have not been shy about saying this is Trump’s war. Trump got into this situation. And you know, now he’s working his way out. But here it seems to be a step of progress, again, still trying to figure out the details here. But what are your initial thoughts on what we know so far?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I actually generally agree with Pete that, you know, it is always a good thing to stop a hot war. And that’s what I think is -- should be the biggest news today. But then what comes next, Omar? I think that is the big question. And let’s remember that right now, Iran seems to be in a much better and stronger position now than we were before Donald Trump stepped in it.

What we are seeing now is an empowered Iran. There was no regime change. In fact, it seems that the regime right now is more extreme than it was before. They now understand one really important thing, Omar, and that is that they can control and they can manipulate the world’s oil markets by shutting down the Straits of Hormuz.

[18:45:07]

It’s great that they have, in essence, presumably agreed to now open it up. It doesn’t mean that things are going to flow easily right now. You’ve had some really good analysts on saying that there are so many other things to consider, insurance companies, whether these ships are actually going to start going through, and Iran actually said recently that they’re not going to let this happen for free, that they’re going to start charging.

So that is very different from what it was before this war started. So I think at the end of the day, Omar, the question is going to be, we need to see the details of this, the nuclear issue has not been resolved whatsoever. The global economy is going to take a long time to recover, and Americans have lost $7.8 trillion on a war that no one wanted and no one needed. And I think politically that’s going to be the issue going into the midterm elections that voters are going to remember.

JIMENEZ: Well, it’s an interesting dynamic because -- in terms of power because on one hand, militarily the United States decimated Iranians leadership, decimated Hezbollah’s leadership. And yet here we are at this point. And, you know, people can debate sort of if they’re stronger or weaker than before, but at the very least, the Iranians have leverage now over the global economy as they’ve perpetrated through the Strait of Hormuz.

And, Pete, I bring that up to say, look, midterm elections are coming up. A lot of people’s dissatisfaction with the president right now has been tied to rising gas prices and how expensive things are. How important is it for the president to walk away with the kind of agreement that he’s been touting that could potentially provide relief to Americans?

SEAT: The only agreement that matters is an agreement in which the Iranians never possess a nuclear weapon. And I think that’s what the president meant in those comments he made on the South Lawn before he went to Beijing, China, when he said, I don’t think about Americans’ financial fortunes or whatever the exact phrase was. He was signaling to the Iranians that he will stand firm until we do what is right for our national security interests and the security interests of our allies in Europe and the Middle East.

The biggest leverage that Iran has had over America is our impatience. We are an impatient society, and that’s what they were banking on. They were watching those poll numbers go south. They were watching those gas prices going north and said to themselves, we just have to stick this out and we will prevail. President Trump, in that comment, which was isolated and taken out of context by Democrats. I’m sure we’ll see it in midterm election campaign ads.

But he signaled to Tehran that he will stay in this until the negotiated settlement ensures that they don’t get a nuclear weapon. So the polling is not going to be great. Americans are upset about this, but we’re doing the right thing. The Iranian regime has nearly 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium, up to 60 percent. There is no civilian purpose for that. Not a single civilian purpose to use that type of uranium for.

So why do they have it? They have it because they want a nuclear weapon. And we need to stop that from happening. When that kind of agreement is reached, I think you’ll see a lot of Americans happy and understanding why the administration did what they did when they did it.

JIMENEZ: And a lot of that comes down to how much Americans trust the president to get that job done. The longer time goes on that that trust becomes tested.

Maria, we do have to go. But I just want to give you a quick last word.

CARDONA: Yes. Let’s remember that before Trump retreated from the JCPOA that we had before Iran was not enriching past 3 percent. So that is a big thing to compare what Donald Trump is going to end up with and what we had before he retreated from what we had. I think it’s going to be really difficult to get anything better than that. If he doesn’t, it’s going to be seen as a complete failure.

JIMENEZ: And again, the beginning of a process here, that is the news that we have. An agreement, an agreement of what kind? Pakistan has described it as a peace agreement. We understand it as just a process moving forward. A lot can happen between now and the signing ceremony on Friday, but progress nonetheless.

Maria Cardona, Pete Seat, appreciate you both. Thanks for being here.

CARDONA: Thanks, Omar.

SEAT: Thanks, Omar.

Openly questioned, gently mocked, and viciously attacked (on social media, at least).

That’s what happened when I attempted to depart from the groupthink and offered an alternative reason for why so many Americans feel food insecure.

This happened on and after CNN’s NewsNight with Abby Phillip on May 27, 2026. The full transcript is here and a video of the segment is at the bottom. I’ll spare you the social media posts.

In that evening’s C Block, host Abby Phillip kicked off a conversation based on a then-new report from the New York Fed showing “there’s been a remarkable increase in Americans struggling to put food on the table, and many are now resorting to skipping meals altogether.”

The tired refrain to this news from some of my fellow panelists was that grocery prices are too high and Trump is to blame. I am sure that sounds awfully familiar as it’s the response to every bad data point. Blame Trump. Everyone nods in unison. Move on.

So, when it was my turn to weigh-in, I began by empathizing with this hardship and acknowledging many of well-known reasons for food insecurity.

It’s heartbreaking to know that so many Americans feel that they are food insecure and that they can’t afford their next meal, that they’re skipping meals. And there are a lot of contributing factors. Obviously, cost is one of those, food deserts is another one.

I followed that up with a light criticism of politicians of all stripes.

I think politicians are contributing factor to the sentiment because they’re not being honest from the President to members of Congress are not being honest about what they can and cannot do to tackle affordability. There are things Congress can do -- you would know it better than anyone at this table, former member of Congress [referencing panelist Peter Meijer, sitting across from me] -- and there are things they can’t do. But the campaign trail is littered with promise after promise that politicians cannot keep which causes a lot of this anxiety.

Then I threw a curveball.

Another thing that I would throw into the equation is -- and I know this is anecdotal. But I think it’s part of it is irresponsible consumerism. There are a lot of Americans I think, and I know some, my friends do this. Rather than go to the grocery store and stock up for what they need that week, they order DoorDash or Uber Eats and pay massive premiums for convenience and then say, you know what, I’m going to skip the next meal because I can’t afford it. There are decisions that we make in the name of convenience.

What happened next might surprise you. Actually, it won’t. It was completely unsurprising.

Jemele Hill: That’s quite an argument.

…

Kmele Foster: I have a very hard time making sense out of what you were just laying out there…

Kmele went on to complain about Trump and tariffs, wrapping up his comments with this, “That is not a DoorDash problem. That’s not me not knowing how to cook a meal for myself at home. These are the direct implications of policy decisions.”

And the point in bringing all this up again more than two weeks later? It is precisely both those things and it’s not just me saying it now either.

The Washington Post’s Megan McArdle recorded a new podcast episode about how much money Gen Z is blowing on take-out rather than cooking at home. The headline is “Gen Zers don’t cook. It’s costing them.” You can listen to it here.

And unlike my take, which admittedly was based on anecdotal observations, her points are based in patterns observed by economists.

Zoomers and young millennials are spending a lot more on what economists call food away from home, which doesn’t actually weirdly mean the food you eat away from home. It’s the food you eat that is prepared outside your home by someone else. Spending that much on takeaway food when you can make something very edible and nutritious and even pretty tasty at home for, like, a fifth of the price, that’s going to make it harder for younger workers to do the things they say they want, like traveling, buying a house, getting married, and starting a family.

I do have to tip my cap to Peter Meijer at this juncture as he made an important contribution caught in the crosstalk and not reflected in the transcript when he brought up the lack of people cooking at home.

The point here isn’t to dunk on other panelists (I very much dislike those who fill social media feeds with those types of posts rather than focus on their personal contributions to the dialogue), but to highlight the great disconnect in how we all observe the world and what’s happening around us. Just because others at the table had not experienced this phenomenon, or heard it elsewhere, did not make it inaccurate. And just because it was anecdotal and based on what I was hearing from those around me, didn’t diminish its credibility.

Unfortunately, so much analysis and commentary will zoom forward or leapfrog ahead to “TRUMP!!!” when there are other factors involved. Dismissing those factors makes it all the much harder to solve our challenges. At some point the conflict with Iran will end, some (but not all) prices will stabilize or go down, and the problem will still exist because many Americans will still choose the irresponsible consumerism of convenience. At that point, those who blame Trump will need someone else to blame. Can’t wait to hear who or what they pick!

*** COOPER: Joining us now is former Biden Communications Director Kate Bedingfield, former George W. Bush Press Secretary Pete Seat and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, how do you think Clayton's level of experience compares to Pulte's?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the good news is Jay Clayton certainly has more national security experience than Bill Pulte. The bad news is Jay Clayton has almost no National Security experience. The entirety of Jay Clayton's experience is he spent a year and two months as the U.S. attorney for the SDNY, Southern District of New York, where I worked. I don't know him, but I worked years before this.

When you're the U.S. attorney for the SDNY, you will be overseeing terrorism cases, international narcotics trafficking cases. It would be generously 50 percent of your attention span. So, if you take a person who's spent about half their time, let's say for one year, that's a little bit, that's some credentials, but it's nowhere near.

By the way, the law specifically requires that the DNI have, "Extensive National Security expertise," I think it's a stretch to say he has that much, but he's got some background.

COOPER: Pete, what do you make of naming him? And also, is this a just, I mean, it's a nod to the critics of the President who said that Pulte was unacceptable.

PETE SEAT, FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH PRESS SECRETARY: Yes, the three most important things here are one, he's not Bill Pulte. Two, Mark Warner, has already come out with supportive comments. He's the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. And as you mentioned, Jim Himes, Democrat from Connecticut, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, has already made supportive comments. That is night and day from Bill Pulte.

And just keep in mind, Bill Pulte was just a temporary appointment. And Democrats vilified him swiftly and quickly, some Republicans did as well.

COOPER: Although temporary, that acting, I mean it's like it's more than 100 days. I mean it's not 200 days.

SEAT: And it could be it could be a lengthy process. But what Democrats did through that, and some of these Republicans is they boxed themselves in by essentially saying, anybody but Bill Pulte. Well, now you have anybody but Bill Pulte and it's someone who so far has received bipartisan support.

He was confirmed as SEC Chairman back in 2017. But I would put one caveat on that, it was a 61 to 37 vote, which is about as close to unanimity as we get these days.

But most of the Democrats who voted for him are no longer in the United States Senate. The only ones that are based on my count are Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats, an Independent and the aforementioned Mark Warner. So, there are going to still be some challenges on confirmation.

COOPER: Kate, what do you think of Clayton?

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think it's absolutely true. He benefits from being not Bill Pulte. If you're the guy who follows the probably single most unqualified person to ever be put forward for a job of this significance. You are going to look better by comparison.

I mean, you know, I worry about his lack of National Security experience. I have sat in the situation room with the President and watched how the DNI organizes and presents sensitive intelligence to the President and somebody who has very little background in that is not somebody who is going to be ready on day one, right out of the gate.

And, you know, God forbid, there's a National Security issue right out of the gate for him, that's going to be a learning curve. And you generally don't want the Director of National Intelligence to be somebody who has a steep learning curve in the job.

But the other thing I think is really interesting about this moment is you have seen Congressional Republicans here actually use their leverage to push back on The White House. And, you know, how what how might things be different had they found this spine earlier?

[20:25:50]

It turns out when they find something that Donald Trump is doing unacceptable, they do find ways to use leverage in this case, the FISA extension.

COOPER: Kate, does it seem odd to you that that -- I'm sorry, go ahead, you froze. I think we lost you. What is Clinton's reputation, Elie?

HONIG: You know, I've talked to a lot of people who've worked under him over the last year at SDNY. I've heard more than one person call him a survivor. And I don't think that's exactly a compliment. But it's not the worst put down either.

He's had to walk a fine line. I think the clip you showed earlier where he's talking about, well, I'm not saying there was fraud in California, I'm saying there was an opportunity for fraud. I think that's a good encapsulation of the approach he's taking.

He's trying to at once keep The White House happy, but at the same time, he has not engaged and indulge in The White House's most extreme abuses. He has not allowed his office to go out and politically prosecute people.

So, there's a mixed view on Jay Clayton. I would say, look, not everyone has to be great or horrible. And I would say my impression is he lands somewhere in the middle so far, based on his performance as U.S. attorney.

COOPER: Do you think based on his answer on the elections there to Andrew Ross Sorkin, that Democrats are going to be worried about this?

SEAT: Well, Warner and Himes are going to have egg on their face if they decide to backtrack based on, those comments were already known. Those comments were made on CNBC a couple of days ago, so they were out in the public domain. This is not something that's uncovered after the fact. So, he's going to have to answer. Clayton's going to have to answer to those statements, both in a closed-door hearing, I think, on Wednesday and an open hearing as well.

But the other piece of this is, you know, we think that Congress can't move quickly. And it turns out they can move quickly when they want to stop someone from being the acting DNI. So, I think you're going to see a very swift, just as swift as the condemnation was against Bill Pulte, I think you'll see justice swift of a confirmation for Jay Clayton.

COOPER: Elie, I want to ask you about the Kennedy Center, the President's hand-picked board of trustees reportedly planning to appeal a court ruling which ordered his name to be taken down.

HONIG: They're going to lose. Let me spoil the ending on this one. Look, a lot of these issues we discuss in the law are fuzzy. What does this word mean? What does that word mean? There is a specific law passed by Congress in 1964 that created The Kennedy Center, and that law says this thing will be called The Kennedy Center, and you cannot change it unless Congress says.

So, they lost below, the challengers won below the administration lost below they can appeal. They can go right ahead, and they're going to lose.

COOPER: Elie Honig, thanks very much, Pete Seat, good to have you and Kate Bedingfield as well. We apologize for our technical problems.

It’s been a while! Sorry for slacking, folks. I’m trying to get better about posting notes from segments - although there haven’t been many in recent weeks with the conflict taking place in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, below are my notes as written and prepared for CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip live in New York City on March 28, 2026. Panelists included Nayyera Haq, Terry Moran, Tim Parrish, Emma Vigeland, and myself. Sara Sidner filled in for Abby.

CNN NEWSNIGHT – March 27, 2026

Latest on the DHS shutdown

House GOP rejects Senate bill

• I started the day in one place and I’m ending the day in another.

  • My first reaction, knowing the Senate passed a bill that gave Democrats none of what they wanted in terms of ICE reforms while funding the vast majority of DHS for the time being was… take the win. This is good. Democrats failed at yet another one of their pointless gambits.

• I end the day wondering why the Senate did the House dirty.

  • To back up: the DHS appropriations bill, HR 7147, was passed by the House on January 22^nd with only 1 Republican voting no and 7 Democrats voting in favor.

  • The Amendment to that bill passed the Senate overnight in a voice vote included an explanatory statement that read, in part, “amounts specified in the final bill” for Border Security and under the CBP and ICE headings “shall be zero.”

• That’s what this is all about and why Speaker Johnson was justifiably upset – angry even – at what the Senate sent over to the House.

• ICE enforcement operations are funded through the Big Beautiful Bill. What isn’t covered though are the office-based administrative staff that support those who are visible to the public, the ones enforcing our nation’s immigration laws.

  • By not funding those positions, Democrats are trying to bleed the agency dry by forcing the Administration to do creative accounting. Furthermore, and the real sticking point, is defunding Border Patrol and attempting to force a return to the failed open border policies of Joseph Robinette Biden.

  • That’s not what Americans voted for – what they voted for was a secure border and that’s what this president and these Republicans have delivered. Democrats want to reverse all those successes.

One big messaging game for Democrats to appeal to their base

$75 billion for ICE – included in that $45 billion was for new detention beds; and $30 billion to hire more agents and upgrade facilities, among other things.

Remember where this started: Democrats made three demands. That list ballooned to ten. Then in each round of negotiations their demands changed. Several Republican senators have lamented the fact that Democrats were moving the goal posts or pulling back whenever Republicans would make a good faith offer.

Republican Party chaos over bill

• There is disagreement between House Republican and Senate Republicans on what all happened.

  • Senate Majority Thune says the House was aware of his plan and that he was texting with Speaker Johnson last night; the House, including Speaker Johnson, say they were blindsided by this.

• Whichever caucus is correct, I don’t know. What I do know is that the only way this language got in there in the first place is because Chuck Schumer put it in there. Chuck Schumer wanted it in there because Democrats long for the days of open borders.

Assuming Senator Thune agreed to this with some plan to rectify the situation sooner than later, that should have been clearly communicated to the Speaker and House Republicans.

The head of the union that represents about 47,000 TSA officers expressed gratitude for the president taking action to pay these employees.

Latest on the war with Iran – Trump extends deadline for Iran to open Strait of Hormuz

• We’re in the midst of a conversation – indirect as it may be with Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt reporting passing messages back and forth between us and the Iranians – but it’s a conversation nonetheless.

  • And as that conversation moves forward – positively – it’s prudent on the part of the president to give a little bit of breathing room at the request of the other party.

• It’s also prudent to not telegraph to the enemy our every move.

• Militarily, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than we are, in fact, winning. They’re Navy and Air Force have been destroyed. We’re hitting the factories that produce missiles and drones, and have eliminated a number of their leaders, including the Ayatollah.

• The challenges we face are two-fold, or rather three-pronged.

  • First is the challenge of the Straight of Hormuz and how we open that up so oil and fertilizer and other goods can travel freely.

  • The second challenge is the question of potentially securing the enriched uranium it is believed the Iranians have.

  • The third challenge is the politics.

    • Conflict is always treacherous terrain politically. But we have to remember, the Iranians want to test our will and wait us out – and it’s on that measure that they may succeed because I know that it’s tiresome for Americans. We’re impatient. It’s been four weeks and we talk of this conflict as though it’s been four years. We want certainty. We want to know what’s coming next.

    • Unfortunately, times such as these don’t allow for a certain path to be communicated. So while it’s frustrating that the president can be confusing and contradicts himself and his subordinates, in this moment, in the midst of an active conflict, I want deliberate deception.

    • Negotiations like this require cloak and dagger. They cannot be broadcast live in primetime. In fact, the most dangerous move is to allow public opinion polling to dictate in-theatre decision making. The president, military leaders, they are the deciders. They have access to the information and are in the best position to make decisions.

Sentiment is unfavorable at the moment – but it’s unfavorable to most everything Trump does out of the gate.

We have American service members in harm’s way, defending us and our allies, and you’re more concerned with press conferences than those service members having the tools they need to succeed in their mission.

Iranian regime lies from the moment they awake, to the moment they fall asleep, and probably in their dreams, too

Debate over ground troops / Rubio comments on ground troops

• He’s trying to calm the fears and nerves of Americans apprehensive about a ground operation – which, to be clear, I don’t support a ground operation at this time.

  • What I do support, however, is moving combat forces into the area as a negotiating tactic; and having them ready and available for hopefully a time in the very near future where we reach an agreement with Iran that includes us securing the nearly 1,000 lbs of enriched uranium they have in their possession. That would require American troops, on the ground, in Iran, to secure, but would be part of a negotiated end to the conflict and not part of the conflict.

Bannon comments on troops

• The most reasonable remarks I’ve ever heard him utter. I’m shell-shocked, honestly and am at a loss for words. (other than to say the Administration is in a difficult position)

Israel targets Iranian nuclear sites

• Target one, target all. This is one of the objectives – doing everything we can to ensure that Iran cannot obtain and deploy a nuclear weapon.

These are not mutually exclusive objectives. Opponents act like there can only be one objective.

Let me posit something. Let’s say the regime does in fact fall and more moderate ideologies emerge as the leaders of Iran. And let’s say that the nearly 1,000 lbs of enriched uranium it is believed the current regime possesses is secured. And let’s say Iran’s ability to support and fund terrorism across the world is eliminated. Would you call that a success and congratulate the president and our brave men and women in the military for a job well done?

Economic impact of war – markets tumble & oil prices rise

• Part of me says if the market feels good that probably means the Iranians feel good because they know what’s coming.

  • The other part of me cannot help but laugh when Democrats periodically to pretend about the market because they think it irks Trump or helps achieve their political goals.

• These are the same folks, mind you, who have denigrated Republicans for decades, saying that Republicans looked to the market only because it enriched their millionaire and billionaire friends. Never mind the millions of blue collar workers in America who have 401ks and pension plans invested in the market. And the millions of families who opened up 529 plans to finance their child’s college, technical or vocational schooling.

Dow is up almost 2,000 points from the day Trump took office
S&P about 400, or 6.2%
NASDAQ 1,300 or mid-single digit gain

Gas Tax

• The suspension of any tax sounds good – but does it make sense in practice? The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents, meaning the driver of a car with an average size gas tank, about 12-16 gallons, would save between $2-3 each time they fill up. Two-to-three dollars each time adds up. It’s also not a seismic change.

• The biggest consequence would be the gas tax funds that go toward the Highway Trust Fund – which is about $23 billion a year. How does the money get replaced to ensure we are maintaining our federal highways and other transportation infrastructure?

Hegseth Promotions

• Other Black and female officers remain on the list – so we don’t know why the ones he struck from the list were removed. If race is the reason, why weren’t they all removed?

• The military’s system of promotion, as I understand it, is merit based. Isn’t that everything he claims to stand for? So why were these four individuals removed?

Here are my notes as typed up on my iPhone for this morning’s one-on-one interview with fellow Hoosier Kate Bolduan on CNN News Central. On air we discussed recent polling on the economy and the ongoing debate over re-redistricting in the great State of Indiana.

Trump steps up pressure on Indiana Republicans over redistricting

• What we have here is the tension between fidelity to principle and flirtation with politics.

  • The political argument is easily understood: Republicans want more guaranteed seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and why win on the merits when you can re-draw the lines?

  • The principle argument, however, is hard for many to grasp because it’s so antiquated and therefore novel in today’s environment.

• And yet, a majority of the Republican caucus of the Indiana State Senate strongly believes – based on what I’ve heard privately and read publicly – that we do our maps the right way, we did our map the right way, and we shouldn’t go back on that for a short-term gain that could result in long-term pain.

Trump threatens a ‘primary problem’ for Indiana state Senate President

• The ‘primary problem’ with the ‘primary problem’ plan is Senator Bray is not up until 2028.

  • Nevertheless, the surest path to defeat is believing yourself invincible, so anyone worth their salt will take a primary challenge seriously.

• Certainly, every member of the caucus – from the Senate President Pro Tem on down the line – knows this is a calculated risk to their political career, but there is a quiet peace when you’re firm in your convictions and when those convictions are reinforced by what you’re hearing at home.

  • Most of the noise in favor of re-redistricting in coming from D.C. and from the online echo chamber. What these members hear from their constituents is overwhelming opposition.

Cheney legacy

• It’s hard to assess the legacy of our elected officials this close to when they served because those who were in the trenches of one side of the debate or the other still maintain their strong biases…

  • But I believe that history will remember Dick Cheney as the epitome of a public servant - from his time as the youngest chief of staff in White House history, to his tenure as a member of Congress, to Secretary of Defense and finally the capstone, the forty-sixth vice president of the United States…

• He was thoughtful and conscientious, and if you watched him, he physically carried the weight of his responsibilities on his shoulders.

• He was the perfect complement to President George W. Bush. The president was outgoing and gregarious; the vice president reserved and pensive.

  • But I will personally remember someone with a great sense of humor (he invited Darrel Hammond, the guy who lampooned him on SNL, to his annual Christmas Party at the VP Residence); and who was sentimental (I once watched him bring his motorcade, already moving, to a screeching halt so he could jump out and say hello to a friend and former colleague he hadn’t seen in 20 years who happened to be there on the sidewalk waving as the limo drove by.

Rejoice! My notes as written and prepared for a one-on-one interview with Fox News Channel’s Jon Scott on his long running weekend show the FOX Report. The segment aired live on September 27, 2025. We discussed the latest polling in the race for New Jersey Governor and how young people might swing the campaign toward Republican Jack Ciattarelli.

FOX NEWS REPORT – September 27, 2025

New Jersey Polling

• On this show a few weeks back I said it was improbable but not impossible for Jack Ciattarelli to win. That improbability is becoming more of a possibility by the minute.

• His campaign reminds me of playoff baseball. It’s not about who has the momentum at the All-Star break in July, or even around Labor Day. It’s about who has the momentum in late September, going into October.

  • Ciattarelli has the momentum in late September going into October which we see in this survey from the highly regarded Emerson College polling outfit.

• While much of the poll breaks down on traditional lines - women for Sherrill, men for Ciattarelli; younger voters for Sherrill, older for Ciattarelli; what caught my attention though is the percentage of undecideds among voters aged 18-29.

  • Fifteen percent say they are undecided, the largest percentage among all age demographics. This is potentially fertile ground for the Ciattsrelli campaign when you consider the success Donald Trump had with young voters and the response we’ve seen in the aftermath of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk.

  • Young Americans are in the midst of a political awakening and that is benefiting Republicans.

• So young voters in New Jersey could be what tips this race to Ciattarelli in the end.

Sherrill Attacks

• Is this attack on her military record a lack of civility or an act of accountability?

• She’s running on her military record. And when you run on your military record, make sure you’ve got nothing to hide. It’s unclear whether she is or is not hiding something.

  • In the event that she is hiding something about her military record, we can’t expect that she would proactively divulge the information. Her job is to look squeaky clean. Ciattarelli’s job is to call into question her credibility.

• Unfortunately, this raised questions about how his campaign operates. Being untruthful about one’s military record is certainly more damaging than what seems to be a clerical error, but this isn’t college students using ChatGPT. You can’t just regurgitate the information without double checking the information.

• Amateur hour antics undercut what should have been a defining moment in the race.

Virginia Endorsements

• This might feel like a moral victory for Spanberger, but let’s be honest, it doesn’t take much for a Democrat to get the support of Denver Riggleman and Barbara Comstock.

  • They both endorsed Kamala Harris. The same Kamala Harris who helped juice inflation, who kept our borders wide open, and who speaks in word salads.

  • You don’t portray yourself as middle of the road to the rest of the world by locking arms with Republicans who endorsed Kamala Harris.

Candidate Experience

• What is experience?

• Years ago, I wrote a column about the definition of presidential.

  • Remember, before JFK was elected, being Catholic wasn’t presidential; before George W. Bush, having an MBA wasn’t presidential; these qualifications of experience can be amorphous, and are ultimately decided by voters.

  • Look at Donald Trump. Never elected to office. Never served in the military. By traditional standards he lacked “experience,” but he was still elected in 2016.

• Having experience in the federal government or state government or any level of government doesn’t automatically make one a better candidate nor does it guarantee a more successful tenure. No experience could be the best experience. It’s up to voters to decide.

CHIT-a-relli

Evenly split between work with and stand up to… for Ciattarelli this comes down to targeting, finding undecided voters open to persuasion

51 percent think economy top issue - that is the Republicans bread and butter

The Indianapolis Business Journal fell for it.

“[T]he reality is, 44% of the state are independents. Another 25% of people are Democrats, and of the 31% that are Republicans not all of them are loyal party-line Republicans,” claims Will Conway, described as a “national expert” of “multiple independent campaigns” - namely Andrew Yang’s Forward Party and the No Labels presidential candidate whiff.

Nevertheless, despite his assertion being demonstrably false, the IBJ lede in a story about his recent hiring by Independent Indiana repeats this falsehood as fact.

How is it inaccurate?

For starters, the Independent Voter Project/L2 data from where it came pretty much tells us it’s bunk.

“Voters do not register by political party.”

It’s right there!

So then, if voters don’t declare a party when registering, how do you know who is a Republican and who is a Democrat, Independent Voter Project?

To their methodology we go!

“Indiana voters do not register by party. However, when those voters participate in a partisan primary, that ballot choice is recorded and reported on the state voter file. In the absence of stronger indications (e.g. partisan political contributions or identification due to the holding of partisan public office) the most recent even-year partisan primary ballot is used. In the absence of any even year partisan primary participation, the most recent odd-year local partisan primary is used. This information is supplemented through the use of modeling analytics. Likely race in major urban areas plays a major role in that modeling.”

Alrighty then.

If you don’t vote in primaries, donate to campaigns or are elected to office… you’re assumed to be an “Independent” by default. That’s some sophisticated modeling!

Bottom line: Independent Indiana is built on analytical quicksand. With this level of strategic acumen, the best they’ll do is run in place as Republicans (and heck, even a few Democrats) lap them over and over.

B Block: Who Came First, Texas or California?

C Block: Cracker Barrel Did What?

NightCap: How to Start a Culture War