Sellin' of Troy

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: Sellin' of Troy
Date: July 27, 2026

Overview

In this episode, the Commentary crew—John Podhoretz (host), Abe Greenwald, Seth Mandel, and Eliana Johnson—delve into the shifting Democratic primary in Maine, dissecting the withdrawal of favored Senate candidate Graham Platner and his replacement by Troy Jackson. The team critiques media narratives around these changes, examines broader issues of candidate vetting and the media’s partisan role, and expands the discussion to primary politics in Michigan, U.S. policy on Iran, and political protest culture (with a sharp focus on New York). The conversation is rich with skepticism about establishment narratives and concern about the ideological direction of both parties.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Democratic Senate Race in Maine: The Fall of Platner, Rise of Jackson

(00:44–16:15)

• Platner’s Exit and Media Spin:
  Platner, the well-funded and “exciting” Democratic candidate, drops out amidst mounting scandals, including rape accusations and questionable background. The crew finds it absurd how press outlets like Politico and The New York Times spin this disaster as a Democratic win:

  “They act like this is a problem dropped in the laps of Republicans. I mean, you have gotta be kidding me.” – Eliana, [03:08]

• The ‘Kamala Treatment’ for Troy Jackson:
  Jackson, a long-time state politician with little voter excitement, gets rebranded overnight as focused and charismatic – echoing the media’s rapid re-packaging of Kamala Harris in 2024:

  “We have now, with Platner, an all-out effort by the media to sell us, as they did with Kamala, the hope and joy of Troy Jackson, who is…Platner without the riz…” – John, [05:00]

• Lessons in Candidate Vetting and Institutional Blind Spots:
  Both Democrats and media repeatedly fail to vet their “exciting” outsiders, whether state-level operators or presidential hopefuls. The panel points to a historical lack of mainstream media scrutiny for Democrats:

  “Why? Democrats aren’t vetted by the mainstream media and haven’t been for generations.” – John, [07:20]
  “It won’t be Platner level...But all of these guys, including the prospective presidential candidates like Gavin Newsom...haven’t been vetted because local media is so weak in these places.” – Eliana, [06:28]

• Media Narratives vs Political Reality:
  The insistence that Jackson is laser-focused and charismatic is unconvincing to locals and the panel alike. The group is skeptical of the value of hype in the absence of genuine popularity or appeal:

  “It doesn’t work to say somebody has charisma…The voters are either gonna feel it or they’re not gonna feel it.” – John, [15:03]
  “Politico turns itself into a PR machine for Troy Jackson not only being shameful journalistically is also completely useless.” – John, [16:14]

• Maine’s Political Culture:
  Maine tends to reward local, established figures who shy from nationalization—a strategy Susan Collins has mastered:

  “Susan Collins does something very smart where she never nationalizes her races…” – Seth, [16:15–18:23]

---

2. Michigan’s Primary Battle and the Meaning of Endorsements

(26:09–34:13)

• Whitmer Backs Moderation:
  Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s endorsement of Haley Stevens is read as a strategic move to block Abdul El Sayed, a “Muslim extremist,” after leaked audio reveals his ambition to “put one ogre on a pike”—going after fellow Democrats insufficiently leftist or anti-Israel.

  “He's already talking about, you know, what he'd do. And the phrasing he used was, 'You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message.' So he's all...he's a bit of a sociopath, but he’s not wrong on the symbolism.” – Seth, [27:29]

• Rising Leftist Pressure Within the Party:
  The left/establishment tension is seen as existential, with Whitmer representing Democrats’ survival instinct:

  “The rest of the Democratic Party in Michigan...know what's coming and they understand this race represents something very specific to their political survival.” – Seth, [29:21]

• Hope for Democratic Conscience:
  Abe expresses hope that party moderates see the danger of anti-Israel and antisemitic “mania” on the left, but John is skeptical, referencing the Republican evolution under Trump as a warning of what befalls internal dissenters.

  “But when Republicans opposed Trump in 2016 and 2017 out of principle...they were gone.” – John, [32:36]

---

3. Trump, Iran, and America’s Military Readiness

(36:26–49:26)

• Trump Wavers on Full-Scale War:
  Recent leaks suggest Trump walked back from a major escalation with Iran due to military briefings about depleted US and regional defensive munitions. The team notes these leaks are consistent with longstanding concerns:

  “These leaks conform with everything we've heard for the last two months…It's not news.” – John, [36:26]

• Was War Ever Viable?
  The hosts question Trump’s initial confidence—was there an assumption the war would be brief, or that regime change would be swift? Now, US strategy looks like containment and “economic blockade,” not kinetic victory.

  “If we can't, we can't. And that's a huge problem. It's a huge problem going to war with this dearth of defensive munitions.” – Seth, [38:47]

• Paper Tiger Syndrome and Damage to US Reputation:
  Both the host’s and regional allies’ confidence in America is shaken by the apparent bravado, then climbdown. Iran is incentivized to “spread the pain” and further undermine US reliability:

  “From Iran's perspective, maybe in the long run they could do even more damage … if they convince the Gulf states, 'You can't trust this guy, you can't trust this country. They're not going to be there when you need them.'” – Seth, [43:36]

• Who Owns This War?
  The hosts push back against the narrative that neoconservatives are to blame, stressing that both the war—and the lack of readiness—are purely Trump’s:

  “So not only is this not the Neocons war, it really is Trump's own war because he's the only one who pushed the button… I'm not taking any responsibility for this one.” – John, [47:07]

---

4. New York, Protest Culture, and the Meaning of Democracy

(51:20–64:38)

• The Mamdani Controversy:
  The group discusses leftist politician Zoran Mamdani’s comments (“the bedrock of this city is protest”) in the wake of anti-Jewish violence and his controversial presence at the upcoming 9/11 memorial. The hosts consider it both galling and revealing that this viewpoint is mainstream:

  “Bedrock of this city is protest…Is he calling on people to protest him at the 9/11 memorial?” – John, [54:00]

• Rejecting the Protest-First Narrative:
  The hosts emphatically reject Mamdani’s characterization, both as bad history and as a dangerous, anti-democratic ideology:

  “The bedrock of the United States is not protest. The bedrock...is the political participation of the citizenry in the...process of self-governance.” – John, [56:45]

• The Reality of Protest on the Left:
  The team critiques the left’s embrace of protest as both an everyday tool and, in practice, a euphemism for intimidation and violence:

  “When Mamdani pictures campus protests, it’s not…the general public’s [idea]…Take janitors hostage…smash windows at a Jewish-owned bakery…He likes that version of protest because that’s what has animated his rise to political power.” – Seth, [62:58]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Media Bias:

  “Democrats aren’t vetted by the mainstream media and haven’t been for generations…This is not just a local problem...this is a generations long Democratic liberal bias problem that has now accelerated.” — John, [07:20]

• On the Nature of Political Charisma:

  “It doesn’t work to say somebody has charisma and is laser focused…You can say it all you want. The voters are either gonna feel it or they’re not.” — John, [15:03]

• On the Left’s Protest Culture:

  “The bedrock of the United States is the political participation of the citizenry in the...process of self governance. That is the bedrock. It’s not complaining when your policy isn’t the policy…” — John, [56:45]
  "He thinks New York was founded in 1968 on the campus of Columbia University." — Seth, [60:30]

• On Democratic Infighting:

  “He's already talking about, you know, what he'd do. And the phrasing he used was, 'You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message.'" — Seth, [27:29]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Maine Democratic Senate Shake-Up & Media Critique:
  [00:44–16:15]

• Maine’s Political Culture and Susan Collins’ Appeal:
  [16:15–18:23]

• Michigan Primary: Whitmer, El Sayed, Democratic Infighting:
  [26:09–34:13]

• Iran, Trump, and Military Readiness:
  [36:26–49:26]

• Zoran Mamdani, NYC Protest Culture, 9/11 Memorial:
  [51:20–64:38]

---

Conclusion

The panel delivers a dense, critical—and at times acerbic—analysis of current American political narratives, focusing especially on media bias, the dangers of ideological echo chambers, and the elevation of protest above democratic process. They see historical patterns repeating with new faces: insufficient vetting, PR over substance, and the peril of populist or radical takeover within parties. The episode concludes with a promise to discuss Anthony Fauci’s “diary” and the head of the DSA next time, keeping the flame of skepticism and rigorous debate alight.

---

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Champion, pain. Some die of thirst. No way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best, expect the worst. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Monday, July 27, 2026. I'm John but Horiz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me as always, editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[C]

Hi, John.

[B]

Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[D]

Hi, John.

[B]

And Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.

[A]

Hi, John.

[B]

I want to get to Iran, but Eliana was pointing out the hilarity today with the news over the weekend that formally Troy Jackson, former Maine state senator, has become the Democratic nominee to run for Senate in Maine against Susan Collins. After the withdrawal of Janet Mills, the sitting governor, and then the seeming march to glory by Graham Platner being interrupted by his being like a rapist. So we have Troy Jackson now in place, and he is, Elianna, you would say he is already getting what I think we can now call as a political fact, the Kamala treatment. Right.

[A]

John, you made this comparison and I think it's perfect. I was just, I shouldn't be, but I was agog because the truth of what's happening in Maine is that the Democrats had quite, quite a talented candidate with real fundraising talent. The guy raised tons of money and a lot of excitement and energy around him. And the guy had to drop out because, I mean, it really, it was death by a thousand cuts, the accretion of stories that he wasn't who he said he was with the exclamation point that, you know, women were coming out of the woodwork accusing him of all sorts of misdeeds. So this is bad for the Democrats in that Susan Collins is a formidable candidate. This is a tough race that they, it's a pickup that they need if they are going to retake the Senate in November. And reading the articles, starting with Politico, you would think a good thing happened to them in Maine that their talented candidate had to drop out. In Politico playbook yesterday, they had driving the day Bangor, Maine, Republicans had months to research and rebuke Graham Platner. They now have exactly 100 days to sink his replacement.

[B]

107 days.

[A]

Okay, yeah. They act like this is a problem dropped in the laps of Republicans. I mean, you have gotta be kidding me. And then in the big story today, where they send, send a reporter out, Andrew Howard out to Bangor, they write, you know, Graham Platner's messaging was all over the place. And the new candidate, Troy Jackson, who is a less attractive guy who's been in politics for 20 years. And a less talented messenger who campaigned, who endorsed Platner, campaigned with Platner. This guy is just laser focused on Susan Collins. Such a great messenger. And he's a. Whereas Platner, they now tell us now that he's out of the race, was handpicked by progressive strategists from New York City. And they came and they picked him out of nowhere from Maine. Troy Jackson is a progressive fifth generation logger from the northern woods of Allagash. I'm actually reading from the article, and he spent almost the entirety of his 20 minute nomination acceptance speech hammering Collins. He's so focused from her 1990s pledge to only serve two terms to her history of voting with Trump. Well, you know, now they tell us that these left wing strategists from the middle of Manhattan came and picked Platner out of nowhere and they didn't know what they were doing. And it was coupled with the strategists themselves doing a mea culpa in the New York Times where they told us, as the Jews say, you know, the Nazi tattoo, it should have been enough. The Reddit posts, it should have been enough. So what we have now with Platner is a, an all out effort by the media to sell us, as they did with Kamala, the hope and joy of Troy Jackson, who is the, I think James Blair at the White House got it right. He is Platner without the riz, which is charisma, as the kids say. He, he really is all the same views, but has been in local politics for 20 years and came in third in their race for governor, you know, wasn't popular with the voters. But, but to read these articles is something to behold.

[D]

I wonder if they're going to learn anything from the fact that the guy they ended up with anyway was a guy who's been in politics for 20 years. Like maybe there's a lesson there that the guy that you actually can run and, and you know, for sure, or as sure as you can be, I guess, doesn't have Nazi ink all over his body. Is the guy who's, you know, what was he, state senate president or whatever. He, you know, he, in Maine politics. He was in state politics. He was there for a long time. He rose up pretty highly. And I wonder if that's the lesson for them is that, you know, just, yeah, you got a guy who knows what he's doing politically and you know, that you've had him around long enough to know that he doesn't have those skeletons in his closet. Like that's a good lesson to learn if you're in the mood to learn lessons, which I guess I don't know that the Democrats are.

[A]

Well, okay, so in that, you know, yes, he's been in state politics for 20 years, but you sort of learn that these guys who run at the state level, running for these races that attract national attention like Maine and Michigan are going to be the races is just another level of vetting. So to my eyes, like this guy's a nobody who hasn't been vetted and it won't be platner level. Like he really was a nobody plucked out from nowhere. But all of these guys, including the prospective presidential candidates like Gavin Newsom hasn't been vetted and Ron DeSantis hadn't been vetted. These, these races that attract this kind of attention, these guys really actually haven't been vetted because local media is so weak in these places.

[B]

Democrats aren't vetted. I mean, let's put it this way. 42 years ago, Gary Hart ran for president and made a sensation against the very boring Walter Mondale and seemed to be kind of charging up on Mondale and was incredibly exciting. And then there were these stories about whether or not he was unfaithful to his wife. And he dared reporters to follow him around and figure it out, which they did. And then they found out that he was having an affair with Donna Rice and that was the end of Gary Hart. The reason I bring this up is that Gary Hart, who was a senator, sitting senator from Colorado 42 years ago, wasn't vetted. Why Democrats aren't vetted by the mainstream media and haven't been for generations. Because the media vetting is to find information on candidates that the mainstream media doesn't like to knock them out of the race or make them lose. If there's a candidate that is acceptable to them, they don't want to spend the, they don't want the opportunity cost of spending time and money and influence and you know, personnel and all that digging something up about somebody that they have no problem with. And so this is a, this is not just a local problem with local reporting and the failure and decline of local reporting. This is a generations long Democratic liberal bias problem that has now accelerated. And you can see how actually it is helpful what has happened in politics that there is no vetting before that. Troy Jackson probably hasn't been vetted because there is very little main press. So how do we know what he did three years ago at a restaurant in you know, Algonquit, you know, we don't. How do we know whether he has a nanny problem? How do we know whether he. We don't know because there is no vetting. And now vetting is all done hostilely and by the way, with people sometimes who have unlimited resources. So it's not even reporters now. You're talking about, you know, rival campaigns, all of that. Susan Collins gonna have a lot of money. She's gonna have a lot of ways to. She and the RNC and whoever the.

[E]

The.

[B]

The. The Republican Senatorial Committee and all that. He is a target of opportunity now precisely because he is so little known. But I do think it is really funny that Kamala, they pull Biden out and swoop Kamala in, right? Sort of. It didn't quite happen here because they did actually have a nominating convention, but so they swap out. They do a big swap and then immediately it is, oh, Katie, bar the door. He is a hot one. He's good boy.

[A]

Laser focused.

[B]

Laser focused, you know, and that's why I said, it's like when Tim Walsh, upon his nomination, said, thank you for bringing the joy. He being the only. And that was, of course, a devised Democratic Party line that Kamala was bringing joy. And so he didn't invent it. He was echoing it. It had been said 100 times on Twitter already in one of those coordinated social media campaigns in 2024. That joy. She was about joy. She was all about joy. Which of course is hilarious because it's not. She's not about joy. Whatever you can say about Kamala, joy does not cometh in the morning when you see Kamala.

[C]

You know, regarding vetting, also, it takes a lot more to raise a red flag than it used to. Anyway, you know, if you look back, we went from no candidate would ever admit to having used illegal drugs to I smoked pop, but I didn't inhale it. To Obama, who we know has a youthful history of experimentation.

[A]

Member of the Chum Gang.

[C]

Right, the Chum Gang. And then you have. And then Trump got the Access Hollywood tapes. Didn't hurt Trump. And then you've got all sorts of wild men and wild women on Capitol Hill now. So it takes a whole lot more for someone to say this could be a problem. At the same time, though, if there is going to be a lesson that comes out of any of this, I think it's from the egg on the face of swearing. When Democrats swear up and down that this is such a great person. And the only problem here is Republicans pouncing and he's a good man. And then you have this army who is humiliated because the guy's got credible, platinum credible rape accusations against him. I think that because of vanity and status, the personal humiliation factor here should temper the insta enthusiasm for every nobody that they put up to run.

[B]

I mean, so if we go back, remember. So Schumer had this great triumph. Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, in recruiting the sitting governor, Janet Mills, to run against Susan Collins on the grounds that she was the most important politician in the state, proven record of winning, and the most prominent Democrat. And she was willing to risk. She was willing to risk it to run, and that seemed to be it. And that you could then sort of wipe your hands, sort of do your okay, onto the next. We got the candidate of preference we wanted. And that's not what this electoral year is about. This electoral year is about how when the finger of the establishment comes and taps you, that may now be a problem and not a solution. So if Jackson is a hack Democratic politician of not any particularly distinguished moment with not much of a record, but actually just somebody who just sat around in the State House for 20 years, why is that gonna bring the joy to the main Democrats who really liked Platner as. Eliana, you said they really liked Platner. He was exciting to them. This guy is now. He's not generic. He's now generic progressive Democrat. Right. If Janet Mills was the ultimate generic Democrat, the electorally successful Democrat who has unexceptional views on a variety of things,

[A]

he came in third to her.

[B]

Right? Yeah, I know, but. Right, exactly. But I'm just saying he is also. So he's a progressive with no charisma. Because if he'd had charisma, he could have beaten her the way Platner beat her in the, you know, took her out, you know, before the primary. But they're gonna try to hand Mainers a bill of goods about the guy, and you can't. Doesn't work. It doesn't work to say somebody has charisma and is laser focused and he's gonna be really good. You can say it. You can say it all you want. The voters are either gonna feel it or they're not gonna feel it. He's either gonna do well in a debate against Mills or he's not gonna do well in a debate against his. Commercials will either be good or they won't be good. But this bizarre pr. The fact that Politico turns itself into a PR machine for Troy Jackson not only being shameful journalistically is also completely useless. It's not gonna garner him a single vote that he wouldn't already have gotten.

[C]

No.

[D]

And it's like Susan Collins does something very smart where she never nationalizes her races, right? And she never. And she does not consume oxygen that is there for the taking for her when she wants it, but she leaves it on the table. She, she just does. She doesn't, doesn't. She just does not need to be in the headlines all the time. She doesn't need to be the topic of discussion and she doesn't need to latch on to national trends and stuff. She has this relationship with main voters that she's built and you know, that's what she sticks with. And I think Janet Mills had something very similar. I don't think that anybody on the Democratic side will benefit from a different strategy than that, even though that is the Republicans strategy and the Republican candidate. It is also, like I said, I think Janet Mills and you know, when Angus King was there and what everybody in Maine was somewhat anonymous on the national level in a way that even when they were an important position, like Angus King was an independent because he was a kind of swing vote between Republicans and Democrats, even when they're in that kind of hinge seat, they really, they really stay kind of out of the national conversation. And the reason Susan Collins is such a household name, if she is, is because of how much she is targeted by Democrats every time. It's not because Susan Collins says, hey, hey, look at me. I think Troy Jackson ought to stay away, ought to tell people to stay away from Joy campaigns on the Internet and in the press that make him look like part of any sort of national cookie cutter program. Say, don't, don't take my dough and the Kamala Joy cookie cutter and make the same cookies out of it. You know, that's what I think he has to avoid.

[B]

Today's executives are more threatened, more exposed, and more vulnerable than ever before. Corporations spend billions on workplace security. But what happens when a threat finds your executives outside of the office? Here's why that matters. 70% of attacks on executives happen at home or away from the office. And Ironwall understands a terrifying reality. If someone has a grievance against your company, the first place they turn to is Google. It takes about five minutes to find one of your executives home addresses online. And if their personal information is sitting on the open web, they're far too easy to find. You're leaving them unprotected. The team at Ironwall knows this better than anyone. They've protected some of the most targeted executives and individuals on the planet for almost two decades. As a white glove enterprise security service, they protect your people with continuous personal data removal, proactive prevention tools and emergency support. So when someone goes looking for your executives, Ironwall ensures they hit a dead end. So here's what to do. Go to ironwall.com commentary fill in the quick form and request your free risk assessment. Their team will show you just how exposed your executives are are and how to lock it down before a threat reaches their front door. That's Ironwall.com commentary stop online threats before they become real world attacks. The links in the show notes

[A]

now

[B]

that it's summer I took a bag. I took all my sweaters. I put my sweaters into a vacuum bag to put them away so that I could replace them with my summer clothing from Quince which has been stored away for these warm months. And of course, just as the days are a little more relaxed, so is the clothing that I'm wearing. And that's Quince summer clothing. Well made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples that you want to live in all summer long. Quince's 100% European linen pants and shirts are breathable, easy to throw on and the summer upgrade your rotation needs and they started just 34 bucks. Tees soft enough to live all day. Lightweight cotton sweaters exactly what you want when the summer nights cool down. Everything at quints is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work with ethical factories and cut out the middleman. So you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. And I'm just telling you, people say to me, are you wearing quints? And I say yes because I am now so associated with with Quince. So make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quince.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com commentary. I think that he wins. Platner was an interesting X factor because the obvious goal, which is why Schumer recruited Mills, is the generic Democrat will beat the generic Republican in Maine by nine points. Problem is candidates aren't generic so. But Susan Collins is close to being generic. It's sort of what you're describing. So Janet Mills would be the generic for almost the same. She's also in her 70s. She's also sort of like calm and a little dull and all of that. And so you're making a race between two very similarly styled people. And therefore it's do you pick the Republican or do you pick the Democrat? Then Platner came along and he was like, no, no, no, no, no, no. We need excitement and enthusiasm and to show we're going to, you know, we're going to wipe these things, to sweep through and wipe things clean and all of that and change the entire dynamic. Jackson's best bet is to go back to the Mills strategy is to, like, not be anything he couldn't be.

[A]

Sorry, go ahead.

[B]

No, that's it. That's it.

[A]

But Jackson couldn't be further away from that. And he's cast his lot. Jackson is Medicare for all, end the genocide in Gaza, cut off all support for the Israeli military, and most problematic for Democrats, dismantle and abolish ice. And not only that, he endorsed Platner. Platner endorsed him for governor. The two are thick as thieves. And now he has the problem of trying to tell people, I support the Platner agenda, which everybody was excited about, but I'm nothing like him personally. But be just as excited as me as you were about him. And that's tricky because Collins is already out there with ads saying he's, you know, Platner negative 1.0.

[B]

The whole thing is interesting. The Democratic Party has had great success. I mean, they did not finally have success with Kamala in the swap out game. They swapped out Jim McGreevey for Frank Laudenberg. They swapped people out, things happen and they do presto, change o and they get somebody in. And they've had this four or five times in this century. I don't know that there's anything comparable with Republicans. And so they're going to see whether or not they can pull this off here. Obviously, the atmosphere is bad for Republicans nationally because Trump's numbers are so terrible. I mean, his best polling now has him under 40. His best polling has him under 40, which is like a wipeout number. And the enthusiasm numbers are just. Democrats are 10 to 20 points more enthusiastic about voting, if you ask them nationwide, than Republicans. So it's not that Jackson doesn't have a real shot. He does. But Eliana is right. That chaos and disorder and losing the candidate that got them all excited and now they have to kind of gin themselves up for another one whom they don't. Either they don't know or they didn't like to begin with, since they didn't vote for him. In the last statewide election. Yeah, like, that should be looked at as Collins is in. You know, Collins is the one in the driver's seat. He's the underdog. He's got to go and take her down. But that's not the way they're writing about him. They're writing about him as though he's just naturally going to be there in the thick of it. And remember, Collins won her last election by nine points in a year that Biden won the presidency. She won by nine points.

[A]

They're writing about it as though the candidate himself, because of his talents, is a problem for Collins, when the reality is the environment is a problem for Collins. You know, couldn't be more off

[B]

here. So if we just quickly move to Michigan, and then we can move on. So Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, endorsed Haley Stevens, I think, on Friday. Haley Stevens now the non Muslim extremist in the race. So there's a Muslim extremist in the race, and then there's Haley Stevens. And Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Haley Stevens. And I think that's an interesting event because Whitmer is a very cautious politician. She's incredibly cautious. And I feel like she wouldn't have done this without some reasonable hope that Stevens was gonna prevail, because she doesn't need to be in Brogis with Abdul El Sayed or his people after the primary, which is next Tuesday, a week from tomorrow. Do you agree with me or, you know, I mean, is this a Hail Mary play for the moderates or something or what?

[D]

I mean, I think, like, that's. It's. We have, like, the leaked audio this morning from El Sayed, and that tells us a lot about what, you know.

[B]

Well, you got to tell people what it is.

[D]

Yeah. So I. I will, but I just. I think that plays into the. The Gretchen Whitmer question. And. And I'll explain why. But the leaked audio was that he. That Abdul Syed was talking to. To supporters and donors, I believe. And he. He talked about primary. Other Democrats already, the way AOC and the squad took to doing. And he mentioned John Fetterman as an example of a Democrat that, you know, they'd want to go after. He's already talking about, you know, what he'd do. And the phrasing he used was, you put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message. So he's all. In addition to everything else, he's a bit of a sociopath, but he's not wrong on the symbolism of. Of, you know, to encourage the others, as they say. But he's thinking about remaking the Democratic Party already. He's thinking about taking down people who are insufficiently left wing, anti Israel all the same. And the Gretchen Whitmers of the party know that that's come even before this morning's league. I mean, we haven't, we haven't heard anything so explicit specifically from Abdul El Sayed on that particular issue yet. But the rest of the Democratic Party in Michigan has. They know what's coming and they understand that this race represents something very specific to their political survival. And I think Gretchen Whitmer is responding to that. I don't think that there's really anything a Gretchen Whitmer type can do to not be in the crosshairs of an Abdul El Sayed if he gets into the race, if he gets into the Senate. Excuse me.

[C]

I'm also, I'm hoping that at this point, with the mania, the anti Israel, anti Semitic mania on the left and among Democrats, that Gretchen Whitmer types are looking on and going, all right, what are we doing here? You know, like, can we, is this, can we just slow it down here? Can we. You know, I'm hoping that there's some actual conscience involved in this. I wouldn't assume that there is, but it would be nice. I mean, you know, if you're just looking on, how long has this been going on, you know, on the left,

[D]

and

[C]

if you didn't throw all in with the revolutionaries from the start and try to make your home among them, but you've been sort of sitting on the sidelines, you might say, okay, I think let's try to bring down this fever kind of thing.

[B]

But Democratic politicians have been dealing, particularly at the state level with this sort of activism for at a minimum, six years. I mean, at a minimum, the kind of the rush that was caused in the aftermath of George Floyd, and how if you were sitting in a mayor's office or in a governor's office or something like that, it was impressed upon you that you better get on the bandwagon and that you better be part of the change. Because if you're not part of the change, the change is going to sweep you up and cast you aside. I don't think Gretchen Whitmer has had plenty of experience with the world of the Democratic progressive, as has any Democratic politician. I think the problem with Abe, your analysis is, I hope it's true, that they're doing it out of principle or at the very least out of a, out of almost. Let's say not even principle, but just like this is not the way politics works, it's dangerous because it upends all the rules. And we just, you know, somebody's gotta defend the rules. But when Republicans Opposed Trump in 2016 and 2017 out of principle, and when they opposed him, they opposed him out of principle, they were gone. I mean, you could go right into Trump like El Sayed, now he's not going to be president, but El Sayed said, we put the ogre's head on a pike. That's what Trump did. He did it with Corker, he did it with Jeff Flake, he did it with another senator who, I can't remember who the other senator was. He, he basically made it clear there were going to be incredible. He was going to set his dogs loose on anybody who stood in his way. And he subdued the Republican Party, which was not his party when he was elected president. It was not yet his party. He was still the outside interloper who came in and, and one, the only comparison to him would have been Jimmy Carter in 1976 who never got the Democratic Party behind him. Jimmy Carter failed where Trump succeeded. Jimmy Carter did not transform the Democratic Party into his party. Senators and congressmen did not like Carter. They opposed Carter, they were angry at Carter. He treated them badly. They were contemptuous of him. And none of that helped him when he had to run for president the second and he was wiped off the map. So I think that's why I'm looking at this and wondering whether there isn't much public polling in Michigan. The public polling that's there is two weeks old. Two polls looked incredibly good for El Sayed. One poll looked incredibly good for Haley Stevens. I just think that Whitmer wouldn't take the risk of endorsing Stevens if there weren't some data suggesting that she might help and that what she was helping was a winning campaign or a campaign that could win. Let's say

[E]

I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time, that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk to founders, athletes and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth, plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.

[B]

When you get momentum, you Step on the gas.

[D]

That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[B]

I was at Harvard Law School. I was blah, blah, blah. I looked up, let me tell you something.

[D]

There's kids in my neighborhood putting in

[B]

Sheetrock that are smarter than you.

[D]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.

[B]

It is never going to disrupt physical blue collar trade skill.

[D]

And the guy just looked at me

[B]

and he said, it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question.

[F]

I said, it's impossible. Unless

[E]

that's. Podcast with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[F]

From the State House to the courthouse, in the emergency room and in the classroom, Americans are losing trust in their leaders. In a 2025 U.S. news and World Report survey, 85% of Americans said government leaders care more about their own power than the people they serve. 73% are disappointed in health care leaders, 72% in business, and 68% in education. But there are still leaders worth believing in. I'm Eric Gertler, CEO and executive chairman of U.S. news World Report. This is the Best Leaders podcast sponsored by the Noble Reach Foundation. On this show, we'll go deeper into the stories, challenges and lessons of extreme extraordinary leaders across public service, business, healthcare and education. You can find the best Leaders podcast from U.S. news World Report on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

Okay, we can move on from that. And then here's the thing about Iran. There's two lines about Iran. One is Trump came up once again. Trump walked up to the very precipice of starting a major, restarting a major war. But even more serious than what we fought in the six weeks before the ceasefire and then backed off. And the leaks or the background stories say that he backed off because the military convinced him that we do not have enough defensive munitions to engage in this fashion and that we will reap the whirlwind. Iran will go hog wild and target the Gulf states and target shipping in the strait and do all this with whatever missiles it has left and that we could just be sort of in chaos and strike American targets elsewhere in the Middle East. Also then people are complaining. Mark Thesis, Friends of our are complaining. These leaks are, this is intended to help the restrainers or help J.D. vance. And it's, it's an outrage that, that these things are being leaked and all of that. The problem is that these leaks conform with everything that we've heard for the last two months. I mean, it's not like people who aren't supporters of the war, like John Schanzer and Eli Lake. Two people on our podcast who talk about this haven't been saying, oi, we got munitions problems, our stocks are depleting. They said this two months ago, like three months. It's not news. So I don't think that attacking, saying, oh, J.D. vance is trying to harm the war effort. I wish I could dismiss it so easily because I am upset at the way things have gone here. But that's where I look at these stories and this weekend is that Admiral Kane said we could do what you want. We can't game it out in a way that should make you comfortable. We game it out and what we see is a lot of Iranian counterforce that we can't really combat.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, I've been wondering for months now when the rubber was going to hit the road on this. I mean, because I, you know, when this story started coming out about our being low on defensive munitions, I thought, well, then why does Trump keep saying, well, we may have to wipe him out, we may have to destroy everything. We may have. You know, if there's forever this prospect of going into this massive war, then I kind of assume that that was something we could do. If we can't, we can't. And that's a huge problem. It's a huge problem to go to war with, knowing that you have this dearth of defensive munitions. And it's a huge problem for staying in and talking it up and trying to. I mean, the effect this is going to have on the Iranian regime too, is just horrific. I mean, for us, for the U.S.

[B]

i mean, I think Trump didn't think that we were, or Kain or whoever didn't think that we were gonna be in a position of shortage. Cuz they thought the war was gonna be a lot shorter and that we were gonna have less call. There was gonna be less call on using defensive munitions, particularly the stuff that we had to give to the Gulf states to protect themselves against Iranian missiles and the Israelis protecting themselves against Iranian missiles. So they thought again, the regime change war that they refused to admit was a regime change war. The entire basis of the way they planned and structured and thought the war was going to go was that the regime was going to change, that the regime was going to fall

[D]

or that it was. It's increasingly looking like, Sorry to interrupt, but it's increasingly. Or they thought maybe that would be Venezuela. Right? I mean, that's part of the, that

[B]

might be part of Extract the Ayatollah and put. And put Ahmadinejad in where the.

[D]

I think somebody else, even if it's not Ahmadinejad, for a while, they're talking about Golibaf, the parliament, his name, the parliament speaker. Right. And he, when, as soon as he was named, you knew that he was not going to be able to agree to anything because he was named as a guy who was actually, you know, being productive in talks, which would obviously redound against him at home. But I, I just, I, I'm increasingly wondering if that's the problem here. If he really, if he didn't think, if he did, it wasn't that he assumed we're going to bring them to their knees, it was that we're going to show strength, take out the guy who is the, the head of the. Take out the head of the snake, whatever you want to call it, and then the guys will know that we're serious, they'll work with us, and it won't be a major transformation. But the things that I really hate about them will stop.

[B]

I mean, the other possibility here is that we are stumbling, and we said this weeks ago or months ago even, that we're stumbling into the right strategy, that it just is gonna take a long time, that we are stumbling into a basically total economic blockade of Iran, that we are going to escort the, we're going to do Operation Freedom full bore, that we are not going to let any of their equipment, not going to let them do any business, and that we will be there as a potent force in the water, in the waterways, and that over time the regime will be choked to death. This is something that Jonathan Schanzer sort of advocated and said, and a lot of people the Treasury Department thinks is a serious strategy. But we're now almost at the end of July. This is a six month to a year long strategy, and it will not involve a lot of kinetic action. So therefore, Americans might forget that we're at war. And so therefore Trump won't be held responsible for how long the war is going on, but maybe this is the best outcome. But again, he's the one who started saying we're going to go destroy them again. I mean, that's the problem is he's now twice paper tigered himself, like unilaterally. You know, it's like also the shortage on the, and he carried a pillow, you know, I mean, it's sort of, you know, I don't know. It's.

[D]

It also affects our, our allies in the region because, you know, when you say we're running out of defensive systems, defensive Munitions. What that means to Iran is not just that they can keep this war up, but that they can, they'll fire a few more at the UAE and they'll fire a few more at Kuwait. You know, the Kuwaitis are especially nervous about this sort of thing going on. They don't really want to have much to do with it and maybe they'll even, you know, push back on the Saudis nerves a bit. But it's everybody, it's spread them. You know, it tells Iran that maybe the best strategy is to spread the pain and make everybody feel pain and make everybody be mad at Trump for doing what you're saying, which is those, you know, paper tigerish declarations. And that from Iran's perspective, maybe in the long run they could do even more damage to the US if they convince the Gulf states, you can't trust this guy, you can't trust this country. They're not going to be there when you need them and they're going to run out of ways to defend you. And so you better align with somebody who is, you know, who can pose a threat to you rather than somebody who can produce a limited defense of you.

[C]

You know, there's all this talk online on social media about the neocons and the hawks that, you know, they didn't care about the fact that, you know, all the warnings about munitions being low. They just wanted to go in and go, I'm sorry, the only people to blame here are Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, everyone else. I mean, you know, if we are too low on munitions to actually, you know, finish the war are the people who decided to go to war. Who the hell would go into war if you don't have looking at your stocks if they're insufficient and the arguments about not going into war with Iran, it wasn't, well, we don't have enough weapons. It was, this is illegal, this is going to cause World War three. Trump is a crazy expansionist. Those were the central warnings that people were saying,

[B]

this is Trump's war. I mean, that's what's interesting is that there was no run up in which there were articles in commentary and reports issued by AEI and pieces in the Dispatch and op EDS in the Free Beacon and all of that saying here's what we should do, we need to strike and do this and we'll do that. Take the dust and we'll hit Pickaxe Mountain and all of that. I believe that we had destroyed the nuclear program. And I thought that it was, you know, that what happened at the end of December was amazing, the sort of the. The uprising inside Iran. But, you know, I commission articles. That's what I do when I'm not on this podcast. And it was the furthest thing from my mind in February that I needed to start looking for somebody to write something, because we were going to be going to war with Iran, and we needed to start getting our licks in on how. How it should be fought or what should happen at the end or anything like that.

[C]

None.

[B]

Nothing. No clue. And so not only is this not the Neocons war, it really is Trump's own war because he's the only one who pushed the button. I mean, Bibi went to him and said, we have this specific opportunity on February 28th to take out the leadership. Certainly no one wanted to tell anybody else so that they would know not to scatter. So it was really between the two of them. But, yeah, I'm not taking any responsibility for this one. I mean, really. And then I assumed that we went to war fully understanding what the nature was of our readiness, and if it was that we were ready for six weeks to two months, but we weren't ready for longer than that until we finish replenishing our defensive capabilities next year or something like that, then even I would say you don't go to war under those conditions. Like, you have to figure that it could go wrong, and then what do you do when it goes wrong? But I don't think people around Trump want to tell him what's going to happen when things go wrong. He's like the song in the Wiz, which is otherwise a terrible show and a terrible movie. Sort of the updated version of the wizard of Oz with an African American tinge. And the Wicked Witch of the west, who runs a factory in the. In the Wiz, has a song called Don't Nobody Give Me no Bad News. It's the showstopper of the show. I think Trump is that character. Like, people walk into the Oval Office and it's like he's projecting, don't nobody give me no bad news. I want to go to war with Iran. Tell me I'm going to win. Tell me it's going to be the greatest thing ever. And they're like, sir, it's going to be the race thing ever. I mean, how else did Pete Hegseth get there and stay there? You know, he says what Trump wants to hear.

[A]

I was somewhat puzzled by the New York Times report, I have to say, in that I found it a little bit surprising that the President would have had to have been briefed on the fact and the nature of our dwindling stockpiles. Given that it's something we've been talking about for the past two months. It may have had to do with the nature of the particular attack he was planning, but I'm struggling to understand that a little bit. And I guess I wouldn't be that surprised if we still saw an attack, because I just don't understand that.

[B]

Right. Bibi Netanyahu is coming to Washington today.

[A]

Tomorrow.

[B]

Yeah, Today or tomorrow. He is.

[A]

For the Graham memorial.

[B]

Coming for.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Lindsey Graham's memorial. But obviously he's coming to meet with Trump, and they're gonna. They're gonna have a conversation about this. Not that they can't have a conversation over the phone, you know, but it's not over yet. I think you're right. This is not over yet. It's also possible that they need to figure out what it is they can do. If they're gonna do a major strike. For example, are they working on plans that would involve blowing up Pickaxe Mountain and then sending in Special Forces to go into Pickaxe Mountain and get the dust? Right. That's a very elaborate thing. They might be staging war games to see how to do it and setting up something in the desert somewhere to see how they would function in doing stuff like that, which the military does. It could be something like that. I suppose that would be the. That they bought time to pull off an even more daring play than the play that seems to be what's playing out. If I could use the word play three more times in one sentence. Zoran Mamdani, now the object of protests in New York after the stabbings. The Allahu Akar stabbing of a keepa wearing jewelry after Mincha services on the corner of 86th and Amsterdam. And another. And another person stabbed earlier who he also said Allahu Akbar about stabbing, so he might well have thought was also a Jew. Big protest in my neighborhood yesterday morning. There were about a thousand people yelling and screaming. And there is a petition now circulating about the 911 25th anniversary memorial where families of 911 victims are calling on Mamdani to stay away from the memorial, which would be a startling thing to happen if he were to stay away.

[D]

Well, it's a startling thing that they're asking at all. That's the big thing. I don't think anybody expects him to stay away from it or, you know. But it is a startling thing that this is being asked, I think.

[B]

I mean, the worst Thing here's the problem. So this is the 25th anniversary of, you know, the worst public event of, like, our, you know, of our modern lifetimes, let's say. And the options given for complaining about Mamdani's presence at the memorial are options that would tarnish and sully the solemnity of the occasion. Like, you don't want people booing the podium. That's not right. We're talking about 3,000 people dead, our entire society sort of turned upside down, all of that. And to have one person be the subject of sort of like booing, like the Darlington county, the Darlington 500, that's bad. However, you know, yesterday, Mamdani spoke a very interesting sentence to me, which I think indicates who he is and the movement that he comes from, where he said, protest. The bedrock of this city is protest. The bedrock of this city, New York City, is protest. This would seem to be an implicit call to protest anything he likes them to protest, like protesting BB When BB Comes, even if he can't arrest him. So is he calling on people to protest him at the 911 memorial? I mean, it's the bedrock of the city. Bedrock. City isn't patriotism. Bedrock of the city isn't. It's the old, you know, it's the capital of the world and financial capital, the cultural capital of the world, all of that. The bedrock of this city is protest. So wouldn't they just be fulfilling his. His own understanding of what is great about the city to protest him?

[C]

I mean, you know, it kind of strikes me as that similar, like, leftist, you know, gibberish about dissent is the highest form of patriotism or whatever the, you know, nonsense, however the nonsense goes. I mean, I think, you know, when we say it's astonishing that the 911 families don't want him there or said stay away, it's astonishing because it's right. I mean, with or without the protest, what business does someone who has expressed any sympathy or support for any jihadist cause or have any connection with a group that expresses sympathy or support for any jihadist cause, what business does that person have there? It would be a horrible stain on the memorial. If I were a family member, it would sicken me to have him there. I think it's an acknowledgement of, and we don't see enough of these, a broad public acknowledgment in New York of who he is and what he means and represents and what his intentions are.

[B]

I'm particularly appalled for two reasons, one of which is that the bedrock of the United States Is not protest. The bedrock of the United States is the political participation of the citizenry in the. In the process of self governance. That is the bedrock. It's not complaining when your policy isn't the policy that is governing the country or governing the city or whatever. That is something you're allowed to do because you can find a policy unjust, or you think it's bad, or it's counterproductive. But what is materially different about America from anything that ever came before it is that the laws of this country are made by representatives of the citizenry who vote those representatives in. And therefore, far from protest being the bedrock, it is the achievement of consensus in the form of laws and things like that that are the bedrock of this country. If you're going with the protest is what makes us great. That is anti American. It is the opposite of Americanism, which is get yourself do what you did with Mamdani, like get yourself into politics and get the person you want elected. It's not to protest. There were great protests. The civil rights protests were epic changing and all of that. It's not to say that every now and then a protest can't have a material effect on the country. But that is unbelievably offensive to me that an elected official, particularly an elected official, is somebody who showed the ways in which the electorate can do something surprising, unexpected, and altering the course of the way things go, how the citizenry does that. And therefore that's our bedrock. The second thing is it's actually not true about New York City. New York City is not a protest city. In fact, given its size and its scope and its history, it is astounding how few protests there have been in the history of New York City of any real size. I mean, you know, the one that really seemed to make a material difference happened in 1911 after a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory killed 500 garment workers. And I don't know, 100,000 people showed up in the streets saying, you've got to do something about the way these conditions are where we work, because they're inhumane. And that had a huge effect. But even here, the Vietnam protests were a fraction of the size of the Washington protests and the Chicago protests and some of the famous legendary protests, like the STONEWALL riot of 1969 after a gay bar was raided by the cops. There were like a hundred people involved in that out of a city of 8 million. This is not a protest city. He loves protest. He's Mr. Protest because he doesn't like Democracy. Not only does he love protest, not

[C]

only does he love protest, but it's like, what does he know? The history he's learned is the history of protest. You know, like, that's what he thinks history is. That's what he, you know, that's what he thinks politics is. That's, you know, this is. He doesn't. He's not schooled in the rest of it, you know.

[D]

Right. He thinks New York was founded in 1968 on the campus of Columbia University. But even that's Mamdani's range of vision.

[B]

Yeah. No, exactly. Or yeah, this kind of. The Howard Zinn idea, which is that America is fundamentally an unjust society ruled by an oligarchy, financial, political oligarchy, and that it is only forced off its path by popular uprisings and resistance is a completely false picture of how America works. But that is the most read history of the United States, as far as I am aware, among people under the age of 30 who otherwise don't read histories of America at all. So, I mean, it comes from a real evil, intellectually corrupt and debased place, but it is nonetheless an idea that people do seem to have. So.

[D]

And also, can we just say that when Mamdani says protest, he's speaking to people who envision protest as something that is not just what the general public pictures when they hear the word protest. Right. I mean, they. When they hear protests, they hear, you know, picketing, whatever, people outside. They don't necessarily picture the kind of routine escalation into violence or the threats of violence that the particular audience for Mamdani is used to. Right. When Mamdani pictures campus protests, it's not. The general public doesn't necessarily think, all right, you should protest this, just like they do at Columbia, which is take janitors hostage overnight in a. In a. In a building. Right. There's just a difference between what he's picturing and what he knows the public is picturing. It's. It's fine. It's kind of like when they use the words like, resistance. Right. Like they. Resistance means there's something to resist. It automatically assumes that you are, you know, that. That you are the underdog. The resistor is the underdog. And so you're supposed to take for granted there's something to resist against. And who could be against resistance. But resistance, you know, means invading other people's countries and blowing them up to them.

[A]

That.

[D]

The same thing with protests is that they say protest, but we got a pretty good look in the last three years at what protest means. And I don't think smashed windows at a, at a Jewish owned bakery or restaurant and you know, that sort of thing, I don't see that as protest. I see that, you know, as, as, as violence and threats and intimidation. And he wants that. He, he likes that version of protest because that was, has, that's what has animated his rise to political power. And I think he's trying to gaslight people on that or at least just try to sort of sneak it in. And so, you know, people should just be aware that protest doesn't mean someone telling a newsman on their block. I don't like this. Here's why I'm not buying this product. Protest in Mamdani is part of a whole, a holistic approach to intimidating. What he sees as, as, as obstacles to, you know, to justice or to power or to whatever it is that's standing in his way. And the things, the conversations we've had recently about Adam Smith or, you know, a congressman having, you know, people set things on fire on his property and assault his staffer, that's protest to these people. And Mamdani is very much included in the people to whom that assault and vandalism are under the umbrella word of protest.

[B]

Well said. And unfortunately we didn't get. Maybe we'll talk about this tomorrow. The dsa, the interview with the head of the DSA on Fox News Sunday, which also gets to, is part two of this whole issue of what it is that people like Mondani actually want to achieve. But we don't have time for that. So we will.

[A]

And Fauci we've got to talk about,

[B]

and we've got to talk about Anthony Fauci and his diary, which is the greatest diary moment in Washington history since a guy named Joshua Steiner had his diary subpoenaed. Talking about his boss at the Treasury Department. And he said something in his diary. And then when he was called to the, in front of a House or Senate committee to talk about the contents of his diary, he said that he lied to his diary. That was how he got out of, got out of trouble. He's now like a multi zillionaire. So no one need, need feel sorry for Josh Steiner anyway. But Foushee's diary is a close second and we will be discussing that tomorrow and the dsa. But until then, for Eliana, Seth and Abe, I'm John Pothoritz. Keep the candle burning.