The Dispatch Podcast - The Last Centrist | Interview: Michael Smerconish

Episode Date: July 21, 2025

Jamie Weinstein is joined by Michael Smerconish, host of SiriusXM’s The Michael Smerconish Program and CNN’s Smerconish, to discuss the state of centrism and the future of the Republican Party. The Agenda:—Centrism in 2025—Third-party viability—Government efficiency—The role of media in political division—Trump’s Epstein problem—Trump’s letter to Epstein—Republicans in 2028 The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠⁠⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—⁠⁠⁠⁠click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XC90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. Welcome to the Dispatch Podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Michael Smirkanish. He is the host of the show Smirkanish on CNN on Saturdays. He also has a serious XM radio show. He presents himself as a centrist, one of the few centrists, as in his view, at least in media. And we get into what that actually means. Can a centrist party be successful? What he makes of the Trump administration? and how the media has covered Donald Trump, along with much, much more. I think you're going to find this episode interesting. So without further ado, I give you Mr. Michael Smirkanish. Michael Smirkanish, welcome to the Dispatch Podcast. Thank you for having me.

You know, what's interesting, Michael, you know, you, kind of have a career where you pitch yourself as a centrist. I started in Washington. My first job out of college was a fellowship at Roll Call for a gentleman named Mort Kandracki. And one of the things that we did at the time, yes, Morton. He wanted to do a book. I don't think he ever wrote it on what he called militant centrism. What do you define as centristism? What is that to you as a political philosophy? Well, a quick background. I mean, I'm a product of the Reagan 80s. I turned 18 and registered to vote in the spring of 1980 in the thick of a Pennsylvania primary campaign between Governor Ronald Reagan and Ambassador George Bush. And I followed my parents into the

GOP, as I think most of us do, meaning you follow in the footstep of however your parents might be registered. And I was very comfortable as a Republican from 1980 all the way into the W years. But then I thought that the party has changed. Others might say that I have changed. Perhaps there's a combination of both. But I no longer felt comfortable in the Republican Party. I don't feel comfortable, wouldn't feel comfortable as a Democrat. And the specific answer to your question is that I just don't tether neatly to either of those ideological boxes at the ends of the political spectrum. And candidly, I think that makes me like most Americans. I don't believe that I'm the outlier. I think I'm the norm. interesting about that, Michael. I, too, view myself as a Reaganite. That's where kind of my political philosophy still comes from. But I'm in the midst of a book, the new biography of William F. Buckley, by Sam Tannenhouse that he was working on, I think, for two decades, which just came out in June. But if you were in the 1980s, Reagan would be seen not as a centrist, but, you know, to the conservative renegade to the Republican establishment or to

centrism in a way. Ronald Reagan could never be nominated in this incarnation of the GOP. And it would be laughable that Bush 41 could compete for the nomination of this Republican Party. I mean, the times have changed, the tone has changed. If Reagan and Bush were still the face of the GOP, I'd still be in the party. One of President Trump's biggest backers in this election has now drifted away from him, Elon Musk. He wants to start what he considers a centrist party. Do you think Elon Musk is a centrist? And what do you make of his machinations? So I respect his business acumen. I drive not one but two of those cars. I have been yearning for somebody to jumpstart a third party movement. I give a lot of opportunity to no labels on my various platforms during the early stages of 2024. But in the case of Musk and a new

party, I have no idea what it represents and what his agenda might be. So I would need to know a heck of a lot more about what he represents other than something that's antithetical to President Trump. Can a third part, I mean, we are much different than some of our friends over in Europe and our system where they have kind of a parliamentary system. It does seem our system works with two parties and to the extent third parties come in, they usually are used so one of the major parties adopts whatever major issue that they have if it gains steam. Can a third party succeed in America, especially in this age? I think that it could. I mean, I'm sure I'm aware of the criticism of people who say, well, independence, you know, Gallup. Gallup in the 2024 survey

said that 43% self-identify as independent, 28% R, 28% D. And then Gallup asks a follow-up question, almost as if to say, well, you don't really mean it. So pick between the two parties and then the headline that gets written on the following day is always one of the R's outnumber the Ds or the Ds outnumber the R's, overlooking the fact that a plurality said that they were independent. I'm sure that some are attracted to the independent label because they think there's some panache associated with being a critical thinker. Like, hey, I'm not tethered to either party.

In my case, it's legit. I mean, if we went through a variety of issues, you're going to find me conservative on some and more progressive on others. And I do believe that there are many people who are like me and are yearning for a choice. I don't know if you're aware of this, but just this week, frankly, maybe it's why you reached out to me. I guess we're about to find out. But I'm a petitioner as of this week in front of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania seeking to overturn a 1937 law that precludes non-party affiliates from voting in primary elections. And we're relying on the fact to your point that 43% say that they're independent

or in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16% of the electorate not registered as an R or as a D. I mean, I did read that you were punishing. It wasn't necessarily the reason we had you on specifically. But it was interesting. It plays into this idea of the viability of a third part. and how you can jumpstart that. One of the criticisms I've seen is usually a lot of people that kind of yearn for this type of party are economic, conservative, more socially liberal,

and they almost hope that that is the majority of people out there. I mean, I think Musk would define himself. A lot of people in Silicon Valley would define themselves as more economically conservative, more socially liberal. But is there a mass out there? I mean, the Republican Party has thrived, even under Reagan? when there were socially conservative policies on the ballot where you got the socially conservative voters to go to the poll, is there enough passion in that center to propel a third party to overcome the odds and become a dominant party in the country? So you ask a really interesting question, which is twofold. One, is this really where a significant number of people reside on the political spectrum? I believe that it is. The second question is, do they have passion?

And I think the answer to that, candidly, is no. I think almost by definition that the people who are at the far ends of the political spectrum are the ones who are usually going to write the check, hang a yard sign, sign the ballot for a person to get registered and in position to run for office, and ultimately to come out. And I think that we've allowed them to commandeer microphones, websites, media outlets, and because the primary voters hold such power in this country because of gerrymandering and also self-sorting, there's this concentration, an outsized influence. I think that's the way that I would try to describe it, that rests in very few hands. And if only more people who are in the center somewhere, left of center, right of center, would become involved and we'd become more passionate. I think there'd be real change in this country.

I think, like you, and correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't vote for Trump in either three of his elections, even though I consider myself, at least by political flossie right of center. What concerned you about Trump? Was there a primary concern that you had with him? Was it the overall package? What made you not get behind him? So I've publicly said that in the 26,

campaign. I mean, it's a matter of public record that I voted for the libertarian ticket. I voted for Gary Johnson and I voted for Bill Weld. I spent a lot of time with both of them. I found them to be credible and I wasn't comfortable with either Trump or Hillary Clinton as the candidate because I was single-handedly blamed for determining the outcome of the Pennsylvania race and consequently the fate of the free world. I decided there was really no upside in going through the process again of telling everybody, here's how I voted, so I've said nothing about 2020 or 2024. The reservations that I have about President Trump to specifically answer your question, I find myself often in agreement with where he wants to go, where he wants to take us, but rarely with the methodology

in which he seeks to get there. I mean, you could pick out the issue and I could say to you, Yeah, I think that's what I'd like us to do, but it wouldn't be the way that Trump is bringing it about. I mean, immigration is a great example. I give him credit for the border, essentially having been sealed, something that I've wanted to take place for a long time. But I think he's blowing an opportunity right now, while he has control with the White House, the House, and the Senate, in not trying to bring about the, okay, what about the day after? Like, what is the ultimate solution? I don't think it's deporting 10 million people. I don't think we'll ever get there. Wouldn't this be great now for Trump in a Nixon goes to China kind of a way to come up with some type of a path toward stabilization, maybe ultimately citizenship for some, maybe not, but to bring some sanity to this process. I pay attention to the budget matters, and I was generally receptive of the concept of Doge because I'm worried about a $37 trillion debt. That's kind of old school Republican conservatives. or it used to be, but I don't think that he has any concern for debt whatsoever. I think he gave it lip service a little bit when Musk was still on the job. He never talked about it during the

course of the campaign. So again, there are a number of things with which I agree with Donald Trump, but not the way in which he takes us there. Well, I mean, I don't want to lie. You said you didn't publicly say what you did in 2020 and 24. Was there a reason why you previously were public on what you did and not in 2020 and 2024? Yeah, I, I don't. I think it was because so much of the bullshit that followed my involvement with Johnson and Weld. I don't view myself nor my role as one of being an advocate for any campaign, any candidate. I really try and educate and entertain with headlines, offer my perspective, but never in a brow-beating way where I'm trying to win the race like they do in other media outlets.

It's just, and I thought that it kind of clouded my role in the aftermath of 16, and so I played it differently in 2020 and 2024. You mentioned Doge? Did that ever have, I mean, I, in theory, support more efficiency and maybe would have gone about in a different way than, then Doge did in the beginning. But could it have ever done anything meaningful for our long-term debt problem unless you do some serious entitlement reform? Is there any way to get around the fact that that's where all the money or most of the money is in terms of fixing our long-term debt problem?

No. You're absolutely right. And I've advocated for something akin to Simpson Bowles. It hasn't been since President Obama's watch and the appointing of that committee. And if you remember, although there were votes taken, there was really never a definitive vote as to what they were recommending because they didn't have the requisite number of votes within their committee. to move it to the next step. I gave a lot of airtime to both Simpson and to Bowls, Erskine Bowles and Allen Simpson on my radio program. I paid attention. The Peterson Foundation, who are the folks that, you know, it's really a remarkable story of who Peterson was and the way he made a fortune and he left a billion dollars behind to educate the public on the threat of our national debt. I give them ample opportunity to make the case because I'm really worried about it. I think we're headed to a point within the next 10 years where roughly half of our federal income is going to be used to satisfy a debt. I know that I can't run my house that way.

And now that I have not only kids but a grandson, I'm just very, very worried. But it's hard for people to wrap their head around what that actually means. And it just never seems to be an issue that resonates. Have you ever met Trump, just out of curiosity? Yes. Oh, on multiple occasions. I, it's funny because my initial encounters with him, as I told him, I was in the Oval Office with him for a one-on-one meeting in Trump 1.0.

And he said to me, as you've said to me, have we met before? And when I told him where and when we had initially met, which was Atlantic City in his heyday at a boxing match or matches. You can imagine how, Jamie, that conversation went in an entirely different direction than I had imagined. By the way, a very funny and warm conversation about him staging those fights in the Tyson era, which I thoroughly enjoyed and never missed. But I'm sorry, the short answer is, yes, I've been in his company on a number of occasions. Well, that interests me. I'm a boxing fan, and I look back at the old tape of the top-rank fights that he used to put on in Atlantic City.

And what's interesting there, they always would announce it's never done. I've ever seen anywhere else where they announced Trump, who owns the casino as the American story. Donald Trump, thank you for putting this on. What were those interactions like during the boxing air? What did you glean from his personality that provides you insight into the manias today? In that era, it was, I can't overstate it. It was meat and greet kind of things. And on another occasion, on another occasion, I was in the company of Senator Arlen Specter, with whom I had a very close relationship, worked for in a variety of contexts, and was in his company then. On another occasion, I was at Mara Lago as someone's guest and had an encounter with him. Also, the, you know, 10-minute, 15-minute encounter when he was president, that was a, that was an interesting exchange as well, as much of the conversation did revolve around sports. So I feel like I've got, you know, an assessment of the man. I, again, don't want to overstate it, but he's a known quantity to me. I pay

attention to everything that he does and I've been in his company and, you know, what you see is what you get. I've given up thinking there's going to be any change in him. The older that I get, I've given up thinking there's going to be any change in me. So, yeah. What was the Ovaler office encounter about? What was the purpose of the meeting? I was in the White House having a meeting with Stephanie Grisham, who was then the White House Press Secretary. That was the sole purpose of the visit, trying to remember exactly how it transpired.

And at a certain point, she looked at her computer, and she said, he wants to see you now. And I said, okay. and we walked, you know, a short distance and into the Oval Office. She was present. I was present. A photographer appeared suddenly. But really, it was just the two of us standing at the Resolute Desk. It generated a hilarious picture because he is, he's seated and I'm standing over him,

looking like I'm lecturing him, which I wasn't. But it's funny. But it was, you know, it was a, I remember as well that we, We were very close to one of the anniversaries of September 11, and I've been very active in the September 11, how would I describe it? I've written a number of books and donated the proceeds to September 11 charities. It's a matter that matters greatly to me. I remember as well that we were approaching a deadline. Obviously, it's Trump's watch.

Bin Laden is dead, but Iman al-Wahiri was still alive, and I remember making the pitch to him that he ought to announce on September 11 a renewed effort to go find Zalbushabwe. I mean, there were like a number of random things that were a part of the conversation, but because I hadn't been there to see him, I walked in, actually, like, in retrospect, I kind of like it. It was just very spontaneous and random, and there was no agenda. He told me, he told me that sooner or later I would be getting fired at CNN. I remember that as well, and thanked me for being fair to him. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take

steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain, on top of everything else, is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying

through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's E-T-H-O-S dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience.

You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience with a single hub for managing your work. out having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

Let me ask you this. We've had two different professors on this show over the last several weeks. One was Professor Larry Diamond from Stanford. He's an expert in democracy. He's been studying democracy. he on when under the spectrum, let's say, is deathly scared of what Donald Trump is doing democracy and is uncertain that it can survive his presidency. On the other hand, we've had Professor Harvey Mansfield, the legendary conservative professor emeritus at Harvard.

And his view is that he is worried, but he believes America gets through these things all the time and seems more sanguine about the threat Trump poses to democracy. I'm wondering what you think the threat is. Is it closer to Larry Diamond or closer to Harvey Mansfield or somewhere different? Probably in the latter category, worried, not panic. Never thought that I would see such an exercise of presidential authority. Didn't know that such an exercise of presidential authority across the board was possible. Not sure if he's set the tone for whomever will follow him.

I guess that depends on the party, but there are any number of instances where events arise and you say it never occurred to me that a president could do that through a raw exercise of power or some would say an overstepping of authority. I'll give you just one trivial example. It's top of mind, which is the fact that the University of Pennsylvania wiped out Leah Thomas's quote unquote records as a swimmer, as a female swimmer. And that's all, you know, at the behest directly or indirectly of the president of the United States. And they, of course, don't want to draw his ire in the way that Harvard did. I mean, there are probably a hundred examples of that

where you say, wow, you know, the president did that. It's far beyond what we're accustomed to. You gave a monologue on your show recently, shortly after the Iran strike saying the president has kind of been on a winning tear. On a roll. I think certainly with the Iran strike, you're right. He might be in some trouble right now. What is your view of the Epstein matter? Is this something that really could derail his presidency? What do you make of this controversy?

Let me just allow me a digression. You're right. I did do that commentary. It feels like it was about three weeks ago. and I get three hours a day on radio. I have plenty of time to address any and everything that I could ever care to wait into. Television, it's one hour a week,

and it's three substantive blocks and a little social media block. And I try and carefully plan, how am I going to use that time? Because it's all that I have in the television world. So my opening commentaries are something that I spend a significant amount of time on. And as I assessed what was going on at that particular time, I said by any fair measure, Donald Trump is very consequential. He's on a role and getting things done. You might not like what he's getting done, but he's getting things done. And I rattled off a half dozen of those exercises of Trump. Of course, people heard what they wanted to hear and, you know, half the audience said, oh, you're carrying his water and you're applauding each and every

one of the things that he, you know, that's like comes with the territory for me. But I felt obligated to give him his just due because I thought that that was fair at the time. Epstein, it kind of baffles me. It kind of baffles me in that so many things didn't touch him, that he really could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. And of all things, that this would be the item that would rattle the base, the base that tolerated grab them by the P, but now is unsettled by this situation. The best that I can come up with as to why that's the case, and it's not an original thought of mine. I think Jonathan Chate said something similar in the Atlantic, Philip Bump in the Washington Post, and maybe I'm mixing them both up. But it's the idea

that for once Trump finds himself on the same side of the fence as the elites that he rails against. You know, Michael Wolfe, and stop me, Jamie, if I get too long-winded, but Michael Wolf wrote the original of the, you know, the tell-all books. If people remember, he positioned himself on a sofa in the West Wing, apparently at Steve Bannon's invitation, recorded everything that he saw, and then wrote about it. I can't remember the title of the book, but I read it. Oh, thank you. Okay. And I interviewed him at the time. There was one vignette in that book that stands out in my mind. And it's this picture that Wolf paints of Trump pre-presidency, speaking of boxing, in that era, flying from Florida to New York or New York to Florida. I'm not sure which. But with a group of people, and he proposes, hey, let's take a detour and land in Atlantic City. And a model who's unnamed in this telling says, Atlantic City, you know, there are white trash in Atlantic City. And somebody else says, what are white trash? And here's the part I want you to remember. And Trump says, and I believe

that he would have said this, there are people just like me except I have money. I mean, he's always had this very common touch despite his own wealth and experiences. And I think it's legit. I don't think that he puts on airs. I think that he enjoys rubbing shoulders with people who are unlike him. And in this instance, in the Epstein instance, you know, he's not with the people of Atlantic City. I would never use that expression. But he finds himself instead on the side of the elite, in this case, Jeffrey Epstein, and whomever else might be tied up in those documents. But I've been very surprised. I'm eager to see whether the story has legs. And I'm most interested to see, like, what's the over

under on how long it takes before we all see the alleged birthday greeting to Jeffrey Epstein 22 or three years ago. You mean the origin, because they didn't print it, but they just printed the text? That's bizarre. I mean, there is a story. There is a story there, and I want to know the story. I mean, first of all, who leaked it under what parameters did they show it to the Wall Street Journal? Obviously, the journal would have printed it if they had the ability They must have taken a deal, which was one of, well, you can look at it and satisfy yourself that it's legit, but we're not going to let you have a copy of it. But I want to know that whole piece.

I mean, you'd never be able to convince me that a two-person story at the Wall Street Journal invented all of this out of holecloth. There's something going on there. And when President Trump says it's fake, and I'm going to sue Rupert Murdoch, surely he knows that if he files a lawsuit and it gives his lawyers a discovery opportunity with subpoena power, you know, we're going to learn a hell of a lot more about it. I think we're going to see it. And I don't know where that ends. I don't know where that ends. There's a debate, and I think this plays to it about Trumpism. And we've seen it with Iran and we've

seen in other places that some of his more influencer supporters like to say, you know, you're violating Trumpism. You're going to get hurt if you don't do this policy or that policy. And Trump says, I am Trumpism, and what I do is Trumpism. Do you have a view on that? I mean, is there Trumpism outside of Trump? Or is it a set of policies? Or is it Donald Trump, the personality and whatever he chooses to do? I have been at a, at least one wedding and bar mitzvah, at least one, since his election. And the dance floor. Okay, the dance floor. A bunch of guys like me you know, doing the white man overbite, if you remember from when Harry met Sally, doing the Trump dance. And by the way, acknowledging by name that we are doing the Trump dance. Now,

maybe it's because none of us wants to be out on the dance floor and we've been dragged by our wives. But I am here to argue that Trumpism, if that's what you're saying, transcends the political realm. It's all over. And in a variety of aspects, you know, I mean, the ritual. turn of some sense of machismo, I think is attributable to Trumpism. I see signs of it all over the place. I see, and the pendulum needed to swing, in my view, backward from political correctness. But I see any number of instances where in this environment, you know, the rules have changed and not just on policy. I guess my question is, once Trump is off the stage, let's say it's 2028, assuming he doesn't really try to run for a third term? Right. Is there a Trumpism that,

is there someone they can take the mantle of Trumpism, or is Trump Trumpism? You know, there is no policy set of agenda that someone else can just take and then win that that's separate from Donald Trump himself. I know for sure that many are about to try. I don't think anybody fills those shoes. I don't think anybody brings the, the unique qualities that he has. I don't think anybody else could escape accountability in many different respects the way that he has. I mean, in large part, you know, his enemies have been his best friends indicting him four times and the nature of those indictments and trying him in New York for the Stormy Daniels case has only emboldened him. That's pretty unique. But I don't see it. I don't see J.D. Vance. I don't

see Don Jr. I don't see Rubio. Someone could follow him. It could be another. Republican president and somebody from his orbit, but never, never with the same elements that we see today, because he's, he's one of a kind. No one's going to be able to do it. Can you imagine that the Republican Party in 2028 goes back to a place where you're comfortable running to the ballot booth to support them again? Could a Nikki Haley wing win, or is that wing forever or for the foreseeable future a minority wing in the part of the Republican Party? For the foreseeable future. I don't, it's not going to be 2028, and I don't think it's going to be 2032. I mean, I don't know that I, that I, I see the resurgence of the Republican Party in which I was comfortable. I mean, you know, the, the demographics are changing. The constituencies are changing. When I was coming of age in those Reagan 80s, you know, the white working class were firmly entrenched on the Democratic side of the aisle. If you go back 10 years ago, I'm just thinking aloud as to some of the monumental change that's happening all around us, not only how working class whites, particularly men, have become women too, but have become Republicans unlike their parents.

But I can remember 10, 15 years ago having demographers on my program and talking about the changing composition of the United States and how by 2050 we would be majority, minority. Now they're saying it's probably in the early. 2040s. And I can remember Jamie doing radio programs, maybe some television as well, talking about the quote unquote existential threat that the GOP was facing because of Hispanic voters and the growth of them. Look how they're breaking now. You can't say that that constituency is definitely headed in one direction monolithically or the other. So it's a changed world. It's a changed world. And maybe the Republican Party that I, you know, put on a pedestal, never comes back. What do you make of the Democrat? Are there any Democrats that impress you right now and you think would make strong contenders

in 2028? I think that Josh Shapiro is a pretty sophisticated, smart, capable candidate. And I think that, you know, like others, except I'm a Pennsylvania, so I get to see more of what he's doing than others around the country. But I think he goes high on that list of individuals who maybe would be more Clinton-like in their willingness to have a sister-soldier moment and not feel wedded to the far left of the party. At least I would like to hope so. So, yeah, there's a bench there.

But I think there's also, you know, the Mamdani problem. And I think that it is a problem because I think that the elevation, should he win this race in New York City, which looks likely, not guaranteed. But I think he becomes the face of the Democratic Party along with AOC and some of the most progressive aspects of the party and that that is not in the party's best interest nationally. Can I put a question that I ask myself sometimes? Yeah, you? Please. If that does become the face of the Democratic Party, and that is a, I can't say his name very well. Mom, Donnie or an AOC, is the candidate or someone like them for the Democratic Party in 2028. And assuming, let's say, let's actually go back. Let's say they were the nominee

in 2020. And it's Trump versus this type of Democrat. Does that make it easier for decide what side of the aisle your honor you would vote for? Do they scare you more than Trump as a nominee? Probably. Yeah. No, I I hear you. I think it's an interesting question for a lot of never Trumpers as well. If you have a Mamdani versus someone like Trump, does that change the calculus? Let me ask you, let me close on the last few questions here. You are in the media. How do you think the media has handled Donald Trump in his second term coming around? And what do you think they get wrong and how would you correct it?

Well, the media is whatever you wanted to be. When I, you know, when I first entered this arena, whatever that might be. My God, it was so different. You know, ABC, NBC, CBS, the Times, the Washington Post, the big three anchors,

pre-internet. Today, it's whatever you want it to be and whatever you're looking for, you can find. My beef and my advocacy is for people who are in media silos to change the channel.

Whatever the channel might be. I mean, It's what I do, and I think that I'm better informed as a result of it. If I'm on a detour, I apologize, but I'll just give you one vignette. So when the Epstein story was broken on Thursday night by the Wall Street Journal, I was most interested to see not how's it going to be covered on CNN or MSNBC because I figured I knew. I wanted to see how it was dealt with on Fox, which was not at all. And Friday morning, you know, I made sure at 6 a.m. I was watching Fox and Friends to see how they were going to cover it. The answer was not at all. I think they harmed their credibility when they totally ignore a story like that. And there are other instances of doing it. My point is you got to turn that channel. You've got to turn that channel and provide yourself with a mixed media diet. It's the reason that I started a daily newsletter. I know that everybody has a newsletter, but mine,

is unique in that it's me aggregating 20 hand-selected links from a variety of media sources trying to get people to mix up their diet. So that's the first answer is how are they treating him. His opponents in the media have overplayed their hands. They've totally overplayed their hands, and when they've made an issue of everything he does, it becomes a complete wash. You're preaching to the require because you've lost anybody else who is seeking some independent reporting on him. Let me close with this question. What topic do you think is undercovered by the media? What political issue is so important but not getting enough coverage? With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside.

So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and Conditions Apply. Learn more at amex.ca. Slash yanex. Did you lock the front door? Check. Close the garage door?

Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts at secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web.

Uh, I'm looking into it. Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit TELUS. slash total security to learn more. Conditions apply. I would say that it's our societal disconnect.

I think it's, I see our problems in this country as being really significant and driven by the fact that in a technology-based world, we've all gone our separate direction, our separate directions politically, culturally, you know, gone to the days that we all watched the Seinfeld sign off. and then we had something to talk about at work the next day that had nothing to do with Republican or Democratic politics. A, we're not back in the workplace and probably not going back in the workplace. But B, technology has the fragmentation that we see in the media has taken place in all of society. And we just don't have common experience like our parents did.

You know, my parents were joiners in the medium-sized community in which I was born and raised. Many had military experiences that put them in same living quarters with people who really weren't like them. People don't go to church or synagogue or mosque the way they used to. And we live in gated communities, virtual or in real. I mean, Charles Murray in coming apart, saw this all coming, Bill Bishop in the Big Sort, Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone. I've read and reread all of those. books and viewed together, they tell a very consistent story that I think is the biggest problem of all. I know, it's hard for me to even articulate it, and I'm caught up in it in 30 seconds,

but our societal disconnect, I think, is above and beyond the biggest problem we face, because we'll never solve the rest of these things if we're not communicating with one another. And I'll stop when I say, and not only is it harming the tone of our politics, but it's really screwed up the lives of so many of our youth who now have anxiety, depression, and all of these mental health issues, I think because they're behind closed doors trying to create an artificial life instead of skinning their knees and being out in the neighborhood and really leading one. Bring me back to talk. Bring me back to talk about that. I have a presentation on YouTube. You can watch it for free. It is called The Mingle Project. It takes me an hour to explain how I see it.

and it strikes a chord, no matter if you're a conservative, a progressive, everybody, like, sits there and shakes their head and, like, yeah, he's right. Well, we will have to have you back for that. Michael Smirkanish. Thank you for joining the Dispatch Podcast. Jamie, thank you for having me. You know,