Friday mailbag!
You brought questions. I've got answers.
A few quick plugs before we get to your questions for the week.
The De La Soul catalogue is now available on all streaming services. This is an unalloyed good. Go listen.
This community continues to grow in ways that make me so happy. If you like it, PLEASE consider a) paying for a subscription or b) spreading the word to others.
Alright…now to the main show.
Q: Beastie Boys or A Tribe Called Quest?
A: Man, tough question. The right answer is Tribe; Low End Theory is my favorite album of the 1990s. Beastie Boys’ Paul’s Boutique is way up there too.
Still miss Phife. RIP.
Q: Do you think Kevin McCarthy is still speaker on election day in 2024? Polling from Punchbowl News mentioned 60% of Hill staffers from both parties think he won't make it the entire Congress. If he isn't speaker how do you think that would it go down?
A: I think it is going to be very hard for him to make it all the way through 2024. He’s already got a budget fight on his hands and I continue to think that the debt ceiling debate is going to be extremely perilous for McCarthy.
I think if he doesn’t make it, we will look back on the deals he had to cut in January to wind up as Speaker in the first place. The concessions about how he could be removed and the amount of power he gave to the House Freedom Caucus seems to me likely to come back to bite him in the ass.
Q: Can a "sane" Republican ever win again, or are the MAGA forces that have now taken over the party now in control for the foreseeable future?
A: Ha — well I think that depends on how you (or anyone) would define “sane.” If you mean anti-Trump, well, then, no.
As I wrote earlier this week, the reality is that there is no anti-Trump lane in the Republican party at the moment. There are people who want to move on from Trump himself but the basic tenets of Trumpism — anti-PC, anti-media, protectionist — are engrained in the party now.
I mean, look at Ron DeSantis. He’s not promising to undo Trumpism. He’s promising to take it to a next level — or, maybe more accurately, put it in a more presentable case.
Q: How will the likely Trump charge in New York affect his 2024 prospects? We all know his famous saying about shooting someone on 5th avenue but with an adversary like DeSantis could it be a real weakness as DeSantis could argue he's Trump but without legal problems?
A: The news Thursday out of the Manhattan DA’s office — that they are offering Trump a chance to testify — suggest that an indictment in the Stormy Daniels case is a very real possibility.
(For those who forgot: Trump is alleged to have funneled money to Daniels — via Michael Cohen — prior to the 2016 election to ensure her silence about her relationship with the billionaire businessman. Trump has denied all allegations tied to Daniels.)
How much would an indictment impact Trump’s 2024 candidacy? Well, he has said he will continue in the race even if he is indicted. So, there’s that.
Could the indictment trigger even more doubts within the GOP about whether Trump is the right choice? Sure. But, honestly, I could just as easily see Trump seizing on the indictment as an example of the Deep State (or whatever) trying to sabotage him — and making it work to rally his base.
Q: I'm wondering if a major reason Donald Trump is not being invited by DOJ is because it would help the GOP. Wouldn't the GOP love him to be indicted or even convicted (other than MAGA)?
A: Right. This is the point I made just above. DOJ is, ostensibly, not supposed to consider political ramifications in making its decisions but well come on man.
I DO think that at least part of Trump’s calculation to announce his candidacy so early was under the belief that being an announced presidential candidate would make the DOJ less likely to indict him. (Otherwise, it makes no sense for Trump to have announced for president when he did.)
Again, I think predicting what the indictment would do in the context of the campaign is very hard. I could absolutely see it strengthening Trump.
Q: What consequences do you foresee for the professional reputations and future employment opportunities of the Fox News employees whose internal communications have been revealed so far as part of Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion defamation suit court filings? The prime time hosts: Tucker, Sean, Laura. The news execs/editors. The "news" anchors/producers such as Brett and Martha? Thank you.
A: You are probably not going to like this answer but I don’t see ANY consequences.
I mean, is it possible that Tucker Carlson loses some people because he said he “hates” Trump. Sure.
But, I am just not sure how many Fox News viewers are even aware of the story because, well, Fox isn’t covering it! And they won’t watch any other channels!
I though Jonathan V. Last covered this really well in his Thursday Triad piece. (If you don’t subscribe to him, you really should.) Here’s the key bit:
There will be no consequences for anyone involved.
None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Rupert Murdoch won’t be touched.
The primetime hosts won’t lose either viewers or their jobs. They won’t face any additional shame in their professional or personal lives.
The supposedly serious “news side” people, like Bret Baier, will still be given the benefit of the doubt, even by their peers in the mainstream. Democratic politicians will still go on their shows and treat them as though they are serious journalists.
No advertisers will pull their buys. No paid speaking gigs will be canceled. No book sales will be diminished.
Q: Edith! La Cheeserie to you good sir! In the wake of the whole Dominion outing of Fox News, where do you see political news coverage going in the near future? More echo-chambering or a pull back to objective coverage (hopefully)?
A: La Cheeserie to you!
Unfortunately, I don’t see a market for what we would deem “objective” coverage. Fox — and to a lesser extent MSNBC — have had major ratings success in primetime with partisan coverage.
By contrast, CNN — which I obviously still root for — is struggling mightily as it tries to move its coverage back to the middle.
Do I wish that was different? Yes!
Q: Pick a Democrat and a Republican that you admire the most let us know why (if you wish, of course).
A: Republican: Mitt Romney. Family man. Has a set of beliefs and sticks to them.
Democrat: Mark Warner. Has managed to stand above the partisan fray. Smart as hell.
Q: Do you think that DeSantis has something up his sleeve that he'll be able to use against Trump? Does he have a strategy to persuade hardcore Trumpers that he's the better option?
A: Think of it a different way — what could anyone, including DeSantis, say about Trump that would surprise or shock Republican voters?
I, for one, really struggle to imagine what that could possibly be. Like, Trump survived the “Access Hollywood” tape just weeks before the 2016 election. What could possibly be worse than that?
I actually think the weakness of the DeSantis candidacy is that I don’t see an obvious way that he peel away voters who are for Trump right now. By promising that he will be more Trump-y than Trump? Meh.
Q: Do you think Georgetown can recover its basketball program? If so, how long of a contract will it take and does the alumni have the patience for the rebuild?
A: I do — and here’s why:
DC is an absolute high school basketball mecca. (Kevin Dursant, Carmelo Anthony, Michael Beasley — and TONS of others — come from the DMV area.) If you can recruit well in this area, you can win
Georgetown is already spending a ton of money on basketball. They were paying Patrick Ewing millions to fail as a coach. Presumably that money will be there for the next coach
Georgetown is a MUCH faded national brand. But, thanks to Big John Thompson and Allen Iverson, it’s still a brand. I think that would help with the transfer portal and NIL deals for the kids on the roster.
What the program needs is a coach with ZERO ties to the past Thompson regime. (They haven’t had that since Big John took over.). I lean to Rick Pitino — proven winner at every level — but could live with Ed Cooley of Providence or Kevin Keatts of NC State.
Q: Hey Chris! Something I've been mulling over and would love to hear your thoughts on would be the future of news and communities. I'm worried about how the internet has siloed us into groups of people who think the same, and there isn't a ton of incentive to engage in good faith on our political differences. We see this nationally and also locally. What can journalists do, given this landscape, to build a forum where productive conversation on news and politics can actually occur in 2023?
A: Leigh! (Leigh is my former CNN editor — and great. Follow her!)
This, as you know, is an incredibly difficult question. I think that any time you are associated with big media brands these days, you’ve lost a big chunk of viewers/users/listeners just because people don’t trust big organizations.
This may sound self serving but I have to say that I think the Substack model has real potential. Journalists on the platform are wholly independent — usually — from any big media brands and are being supported solely by people who read.
I, at least, have found that the conversation in this Substack community has been far more a) thoughtful b) engaging and c) interesting than anything I have experienced in a long time.
I don’t think Substack is THE answer to the problem you identify. But I do think it may be part of a solution.
Thanks for answering my question!
And yeah, I agree with your answer to someone else's question: Fox and its hosts will face NO fallout whatsoever from their pushing of obvious lies. Their audience won't even hear about it, and to the extent that they do, they'll just screech that it's "fake news".
I love this answer! And thanks for the shoutout. Glad to hear that Substack is serving you (and the audience) well!