Podcasts about Dukakis

We welcome the awesome Tim Kilduff to the show! Tim is the president and founder of the 26.2 Foundation, whose signature project is the building of the International Marathon Center. As race director of the Boston Marathon from 1983-1984 he organized and led a small team that saved the Marathon during a period of operational crisis, ensuring the success it enjoys today. His contributions to the race have continued for more than 30 years in creative ways such as broadcasting, fundraising and non-profit development, with each effort enhancing the Marathon.His experience includes corporate affairs, organizational management, internal and external communications, corporate philanthropy and community relations, working with technology companies, small businesses and community organizations. His background includes a focus on crisis communications, public relations, media, philanthropy, government relations and marketing programs to effectively and strategically position clients with internal and external audiences. His work has been recognized by the Reagan administration, Vice President Gore, and Massachusetts Governors Weld and Dukakis, as well as Massachusetts Lt. Governor Healy during the Romney/Healy administration. He was presented with the Philhellene Award in 2018 by the Alpha Omega Council of Boston and in 2021 was awarded the College of Education Centennial Alumni Award from his alma mater, Kent State University. Join us as we chat with Tim!Learn more at the 26.2 Foundation website: 26-2.orgListen and watch more of the Boston Greeks Podcast.

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports Kitty Dukakis, wife of former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, dies at 88.

The wife of former governor and Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis, Kitty was recalled by friends and family members as someone who was drawn to those who were suffering, worked tirelessly to help them, and advanced both policy and awareness on social issues and human rights.

By Walt HickeyDouble feature today!Welcome to the Numlock Sunday edition.This week, I spoke to Alissa Wilkinson who is out with the brand new book, We Tell Ourselves Stories: Joan Didion and the American Dream Machine.I'm a huge fan of Alissa, she's a phenomenal critic and I thought this topic — what happens when one of the most important American literary figures heads out to Hollywood to work on the most important American medium — is super fascinating. It's a really wonderful book and if you're a longtime Joan Didion fan or simply a future Joan Didion fan, it's a look at a really transformative era of Hollywood and should be a fun read regardless.Alissa can be found at the New York Times, and the book is available wherever books are sold.This interview has been condensed and edited. All right, Alissa, thank you so much for coming on.Yeah, thanks for having me. It's good to be back, wherever we are.Yes, you are the author of We Tell Ourselves Stories: Joan Didion and the American Dream Machine. It's a really exciting book. It's a really exciting approach, for a Joan Didion biography and placing her in the current of American mainstream culture for a few years. I guess just backing out, what got you interested in Joan Didion to begin with? When did you first get into her work?Joan Didion and I did not become acquainted, metaphorically, until after I got out of college. I studied Tech and IT in college, and thus didn't read any books, because they don't make you read books in school, or they didn't when I was there. I moved to New York right afterward. I was riding the subway. There were all these ads for this book called The Year of Magical Thinking. It was the year 2005, the book had just come out. The Year of Magical Thinking is Didion's National Book Award-winning memoir about the year after her husband died, suddenly of a heart attack in '03. It's sort of a meditation on grief, but it's not really what that sounds like. If people haven't read it's very Didion. You know, it's not sentimental, it's constantly examining the narratives that she's telling herself about grief.So I just saw these ads on the walls. I was like, what is this book that everybody seems to be reading? I just bought it and read it. And it just so happened that it was right after my father, who was 46 at the time, was diagnosed with a very aggressive leukemia, and then died shortly thereafter, which was shocking, obviously. The closer I get to that age, it feels even more shocking that he was so young. I didn't have any idea how to process that emotion or experience. The book was unexpectedly helpful. But it also introduced me to a writer who I'd never read before, who felt like she was looking at things from a different angle than everyone else.Of course, she had a couple more books come out after that. But I don't remember this distinctly, but probably what happened is I went to some bookstore, The Strand or something, and bought The White Album and Slouching Towards Bethlehem off the front table as everyone does because those books have just been there for decades.From that, I learned more, starting to understand how writing could work. I didn't realize how form and content could interact that way. Over the years, I would review a book by her or about her for one publication or another. Then when I was in graduate school, getting my MFA in nonfiction, I wrote a bit about her because I was going through a moment of not being sure if my husband and I were going to stay in New York or we were going to move to California. They sort of obligate you to go through a goodbye to all that phase if you are contemplating that — her famous essay about leaving New York. And then, we did stay in New York City. But ultimately, that's 20 years of history.Then in 2020, I was having a conversation (that was quite-early pandemic) with my agent about possible books I might write. I had outlined a bunch of books to her. Then she was like, “These all sound like great ideas. But I've always wanted to rep a book on Joan Didion. So I just wanted to put that bug in your ear.” I was like, “Oh, okay. That seems like something I should probably do.”It took a while to find an angle, which wound up being Didion in Hollywood. This is mostly because I realized that a lot of people don't really know her as a Hollywood figure, even though she's a pretty major Hollywood figure for a period of time. The more of her work I read, the more I realized that her work is fruitfully understood as the work of a woman who was profoundly influenced by (and later thinking in terms of Hollywood metaphors) whether she was writing about California or American politics or even grief.So that's the long-winded way of saying I wasn't, you know, acquainted with her work until adulthood, but then it became something that became a guiding light for me as a writer.That's really fascinating. I love it. Because again I think a lot of attention on Didion has been paid since her passing. But this book is really exciting because you came at it from looking at the work as it relates to Hollywood. What was Didion's experience in Hollywood? What would people have seen from it, but also, what is her place there?The directly Hollywood parts of her life start when she's in her 30s. She and her husband — John Gregory Dunn, also a writer and her screenwriting partner — moved from New York City, where they had met and gotten married, to Los Angeles. John's brother, Nick Dunn later became one of the most important early true crime writers at Vanity Fair, believe it or not. But at the time, he was working as a TV producer. He and his wife were there. So they moved to Los Angeles. It was sort of a moment where, you know, it's all well and good to be a journalist and a novelist. If you want to support yourself, Hollywood is where it's at.So they get there at a moment when the business is shifting from these big-budget movies — the Golden Age — to the new Hollywood, where everything is sort of gritty and small and countercultural. That's the moment they arrive. They worked in Hollywood. I mean, they worked literally in Hollywood for many years after that. And then in Hollywood even when they moved back to New York in the '80s as screenwriters still.People sometimes don't realize that they wrote a bunch of produced screenplays. The earliest was The Panic in Needle Park. Obviously, they adapted Didion's novel Play It As It Lays. There are several others, but one that a lot of people don't realize they wrote was the version of A Star is Born that stars Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. It was their idea to shift the Star is Born template from Hollywood entities to rock stars. That was their idea. Of course, when Bradley Cooper made his version, he iterated on that. So their work was as screenwriters but also as figures in the Hollywood scene because they were literary people at the same time that they were screenwriters. They knew all the actors, and they knew all the producers and the executives.John actually wrote, I think, two of the best books ever written on Hollywood decades apart. One called The Studio, where he just roamed around on the Fox backlot. For a year for reasons he couldn't understand, he got access. That was right when the catastrophe that was Dr. Doolittle was coming out. So you get to hear the inside of the studio. Then later, he wrote a book called Monster, which is about their like eight-year long attempt to get their film Up Close and Personal made, which eventually they did. It's a really good look at what the normal Hollywood experience was at the time: which is like: you come up with an idea, but it will only vaguely resemble the final product once all the studios get done with it.So it's, it's really, that's all very interesting. They're threaded through the history of Hollywood in that period. On top of it for the book (I realized as I was working on it) that a lot of Didion's early life is influenced by especially her obsession with John Wayne and also with the bigger mythology of California and the West, a lot of which she sees as framed through Hollywood Westerns.Then in the '80s, she pivoted to political reporting for a long while. If you read her political writing, it is very, very, very much about Hollywood logic seeping into American political culture. There's an essay called “Inside Baseball” about the Dukakis campaign that appears in Political Fictions, her book that was published on September 11, 2001. In that book, she writes about how these political campaigns are directed and set up like a production for the cameras and how that was becoming not just the campaign, but the presidency itself. Of course, she had no use for Ronald Reagan, and everything she writes about him is very damning. But a lot of it was because she saw him as the embodiment of Hollywood logic entering the political sphere and felt like these are two separate things and they need to not be going together.So all of that appeared to me as I was reading. You know, once you see it, you can't unsee it. It just made sense for me to write about it. On top of it, she was still alive when I was writing the proposal and shopping it around. So she actually died two months after we sold the book to my publisher. It meant I was extra grateful for this angle because I knew there'd be a lot more books on her, but I wanted to come at it from an angle that I hadn't seen before. So many people have written about her in Hollywood before, but not quite through this lens.Yeah. What were some things that you discovered in the course of your research? Obviously, she's such an interesting figure, but she's also lived so very publicly that I'm just super interested to find out what are some of the things that you learned? It can be about her, but it can also be the Hollywood system as a whole.Yeah. I mean, I didn't interview her for obvious reasons.Understandable, entirely understandable.Pretty much everyone in her life also is gone with the exception really of Griffin Dunn, who is her nephew, John's nephew, the actor. But other than that, it felt like I needed to look at it through a critical lens. So it meant examining a lot of texts. A lot of Didion's magazine work (which was a huge part of her life) is published in the books that people read like Slouching Towards Bethlehem and The White Album and all the other books. What was interesting to me was discovering (I mean, not “discovering” because other people have read it) that there is some work that's not published and it's mostly her criticism.Most of that criticism was published in the late '50s and the early '60s when she was living in New York City, working at Vogue and trying to make it in the literary scene that was New York at that time, which was a very unique place. I mean, she was writing criticism and essays for both, you know, like National Review and The Nation at the same time, which was just hard to conceive of today. It was something you'd do back then. Yeah, wild stuff.A lot of that criticism was never collected into books. The most interesting is that she'd been working at Vogue for a long time in various positions, but she wound up getting added to the film critic column at Vogue in, '62, I want to say, although I might have that date slightly off. She basically alternated weeks with another critic for a few years, writing that until she started writing in movies proper. It's never a great idea to be a critic and a screenwriter at the same time.Her criticism is fascinating. So briefly, for instance, she shared that column with Pauline Kael. Pauline Kael became well known after she wrote about Bonnie and Clyde. This was prior to that. This is several years prior to that. They also hated each other for a long time afterward, which is funny, because, in some ways, their style is very different but their persona is actually very similar. So I wonder about that.But in any case, even when she wasn't sharing the column with Pauline Kael, it was a literal column in a magazine. So it's like one column of text, she can say barely anything. She was always a bit of a contrarian, but she was actively not interested in the things that were occupying New York critics at the time. Things like the Auteur Theory, what was happening in France, the downtown scene and the Shirley Clark's of the world. She had no use for it. At some point, she accuses Billy Wilder of having really no sense of humor, which is very funny.When you read her criticism, you see a person who is very invested in a classical notion of Hollywood as a place that shows us fantasies that we can indulge in for a while. She talks in her very first column about how she doesn't really need movies to be masterpieces, she just wants them to have moments. When she says moments, she means big swelling things that happen in a movie that make her feel things.It's so opposite, I think, to most people's view of Didion. Most people associate her with this snobbish elitism or something, which I don't think is untrue when we're talking about literature. But for her, the movies were like entertainment, and entering that business was a choice to enter that world. She wasn't attempting to elevate the discourse or something.I just think that's fascinating. She also has some great insights there. But as a film critic, I find myself disagreeing with most of her reviews. But I think that doesn't matter. It was more interesting to see how she conceived of the movies. There is a moment later on, in another piece that I don't think has been republished anywhere from the New York Review of Books, where she writes about the movies of Woody Allen. She hates them. It's right at the point where he's making like Manhattan and Annie Hall, like the good stuff. She just has no use for them. It's one of the funniest pieces. I won't spoil the ending because it's hilarious, and it's in the book.That writing was of huge interest to me and hasn't been republished in books. I was very grateful to get access to it, in part because it is in the archives — the electronic archives of the New York Public Library. But at the time, the library was closed. So I had to call the library and have a librarian get on Zoom with me for like an hour and a half to figure out how I could get in the proverbial back door of the library to get access while the library wasn't open.That's magnificent. That's such a cool way to go to the archives because some stuff just hasn't been published. If it wasn't digitized, then it's not digitized. That's incredible.Yeah, it's there, but you can barely print them off because they're in PDFs. They're like scanned images that are super high res, so the printer just dies when you try to print them. It's all very fascinating. I hope it gets republished at some point because I think there's enough interest in her work that it's fascinating to see this other aspect of her taste and her persona.It's really interesting that she seems to have wanted to meet the medium where it is, right? She wasn't trying to literary-up Hollywood. I mean, LA can be a bit of a friction. It's not exactly a literary town in the way that some East Coast metropolises can be. It is interesting that she was enamored by the movies. Do you want to speak about what things were like for her when she moved out?Yeah, it is funny because, at the same time, the first two movies that they wrote and produced are The Panic in Needle Park, which is probably the most new Hollywood movie you can imagine. It's about addicts at Needle Park, which is actually right where the 72nd Street subway stop is on the Upper West Side. If people have been there, it's hard to imagine. But that was apparently where they all sat around, and there were a lot of needles. It's apparently the first movie supposedly where someone shoots up live on camera.So it was the '70s. That's amazing.Yes, and it launched Al Pacino's film career! Yeah, it's wild. You watch it and you're just like, “How is this coming from the woman who's about all this arty farty stuff in the movies.” And Play It As It Lays has a very similar, almost avant-garde vibe to it. It's very, very interesting. You see it later on in the work that they made.A key thing to remember about them (and something I didn't realize before I started researching the book)was that Didion and Dunn were novelists who worked in journalism because everybody did. They wrote movies, according to them (you can only go off of what they said. A lot of it is John writing these jaunty articles. He's a very funny writer) because “we had tuition and a mortgage. This is how you pay for it.”This comes up later on, they needed to keep their WGA insurance because John had heart trouble. The best way to have health insurance was to remain in the Writers Guild. Remaining in the Writers Guild means you had to have a certain amount of work produced through union means. They were big union supporters. For them this was not, this was very strictly not an auteurist undertaking. This was not like, “Oh, I'm gonna go write these amazing screenplays that give my concept of the world to the audience.” It's not like Bonnie and Clyding going on here. It's very like, “We wrote these based on some stories that we thought would be cool.”I like that a lot. Like the idea that A Star is Born was like a pot boiler. That's really delightful.Completely. It was totally taken away from them by Streisand and John Peters at some point. But they were like, “Yeah, I mean, you know, it happens. We still got paid.”Yeah, if it can happen to Superman, it can happen to you.It happens to everybody, you know, don't get too precious about it. The important thing is did your novel come out and was it supported by its publisher?So just tracing some of their arcs in Hollywood. Obviously, Didion's one of the most influential writers of her generation, there's a very rich literary tradition. Where do we see her footprint, her imprint in Hollywood? What are some of the ways that we can see her register in Hollywood, or reverberate outside of it?In the business itself, I don't know that she was influential directly. What we see is on the outside of it. So a lot of people were friends. She was like a famous hostess, famous hostess. The New York Public Library archives are set to open at the end of March, of Didion and Dunn's work, which was like completely incidental to my publication date. I just got lucky. There's a bunch of screenplays in there that they worked on that weren't produced. There's also her cookbooks, and I'm very excited to go through those and see that. So you might meet somebody there.Her account of what the vibe was when the Manson murders occurred, which is published in her essay The White Album, is still the one people talk about, even though there are a lot of different ways to come at it. That's how we think about the Manson murders: through her lens. Later on, when she's not writing directly about Hollywood anymore (and not really writing in Hollywood as much) but instead is writing about the headlines, about news events, about sensationalism in the news, she becomes a great media critic. We start to see her taking the things that she learned (having been around Hollywood people, having been on movie sets, having seen how the sausage is made) and she starts writing about politics. In that age, it is Hollywood's logic that you perform for the TV. We have the debates suddenly becoming televised, the conventions becoming televised, we start to see candidates who seem specifically groomed to win because they look good on TV. They're starting to win and rule the day.She writes about Newt Gingrich. Of course, Gingrich was the first politician to figure out how to harness C-SPAN to his own ends — the fact that there were TV cameras on the congressional floor. So she's writing about all of this stuff at a time when you can see other people writing about it. I mean, Neil Postman famously writes about it. But the way Didion does it is always very pegged to reviewing somebody's book, or she's thinking about a particular event, or she's been on the campaign plane or something like that. Like she's been on the inside, but with an outsider's eye.That also crops up in, for instance, her essays. “Sentimental Journeys” is one of her most famous ones. That one's about the case of the Central Park Five, and the jogger who was murdered. Of course, now, we're many decades out from that, and the convictions were vacated. We know about coerced confessions. Also Donald Trump arrives in the middle of that whole thing.But she's actually not interested in the guilt or innocence question, because a lot of people were writing about that. She's interested in how the city of New York and the nation perform themselves for themselves, seeing themselves through the long lens of a movie and telling themselves stories about themselves. You see this over and over in her writing, no matter what she's writing about. I think once she moved away from writing about the business so much, she became very interested in how Hollywood logic had taken over American public life writ large.That's fascinating. Like, again, she spends time in the industry, then basically she can only see it through that lens. Of course, Michael Dukakis in a tank is trying to be a set piece, of course in front of the Berlin Wall, you're finally doing set decoration rather than doing it outside of a brick wall somewhere. You mentioned the New York thing in Performing New York. I have lived in the city for over a decade now. The dumbest thing is when the mayor gets to wear the silly jacket whenever there's a snowstorm that says “Mr. Mayor.” It's all an act in so many ways. I guess that political choreography had to come from somewhere, and it seems like she was documenting a lot of that initial rise.Yeah, I think she really saw it. The question I would ask her, if I could, is how cognizant she was that she kept doing that. As someone who's written for a long time, you don't always recognize that you have the one thing you write about all the time. Other people then bring it up to you and you're like, “Oh, I guess you're right.” Even when you move into her grief memoir phase, which is how I think about the last few original works that she published, she uses movie logic constantly in those.I mean, The Year of Magical Thinking is a cyclical book, she goes over the same events over and over. But if you actually look at the language she's using, she talks about running the tape back, she talks about the edit, she talks about all these things as if she's running her own life through how a movie would tell a story. Maybe she knew very deliberately. She's not a person who does things just haphazardly, but it has the feeling of being so baked into her psyche at this point that she would never even think of trying to escape it.Fascinating.Yeah, that idea that you don't know what you are potentially doing, I've thought about that. I don't know what mine is. But either way. It's such a cool way to look at it. On a certain level, she pretty much succeeded at that, though, right? I think that when people think about Joan Didion, they think about a life that freshens up a movie, right? Like, it workedVery much, yeah. I'm gonna be really curious to see what happens over the next 10 years or so. I've been thinking about figures like Sylvia Plath or women with larger-than-life iconography and reputation and how there's a constant need to relook at their legacies and reinvent and rethink and reimagine them. There's a lot in the life of Didion that I think remains to be explored. I'm really curious to see where people go with it, especially with the opening of these archives and new personal information making its way into the world.Yeah, even just your ability to break some of those stories that have been locked away in archives out sounds like a really exciting addition to the scholarship. Just backing out a little bit, we live in a moment in which the relationship between pop culture and political life is fairly directly intertwined. Setting aside the steel-plated elephant in the room, you and I are friendly because we bonded over this idea that movies really are consequential. Coming out of this book and coming out of reporting on it, what are some of the relevances for today in particular?Yeah, I mean, a lot more than I thought, I guess, five years ago. I started work on the book at the end of Trump One, and it's coming out at the beginning of Trump Two, and there was this period in the middle of a slightly different vibe. But even then I watch TikTok or whatever. You see people talk about “main character energy” or the “vibe shift” or all of romanticizing your life. I would have loved to read a Didion essay on the way that young people sort of view themselves through the logic of the screens they have lived on and the way that has shaped America for a long time.I should confirm this, I don't think she wrote about Obama, or if she did, it was only a little bit. So her political writing ends in George W. Bush's era. I think there's one piece on Obama, and then she's writing about other things. It's just interesting to think about how her ideas of what has happened to political culture in America have seeped into the present day.I think the Hollywood logic, the cinematic logic has given way to reality TV logic. That's very much the logic of the Trump world, right? Still performing for cameras, but the cameras have shifted. The way that we want things from the cameras has shifted, too. Reality TV is a lot about creating moments of drama where they may or may not actually exist and bombarding you with them. I think that's a lot of what we see and what we feel now. I have to imagine she would think about it that way.There is one interesting essay that I feel has only recently been talked about. It's at the beginning of my book, too. It was in a documentary, and Gia Tolentino wrote about it recently. It's this essay she wrote in 2000 about Martha Stewart and about Martha Stewart's website. It feels like the 2000s was like, “What is this website thing? Why are people so into it?” But really, it's an essay about parasocial relationships that people develop (with women in particular) who they invent stories around and how those stories correspond to greater American archetypes. It's a really interesting essay, not least because I think it's an essay also about people's parasocial relationships with Joan Didion.So the rise of her celebrity in the 21st century, where people know who she is and carry around a tote bag, but don't really know what they're getting themselves into is very interesting to me. I think it is also something she thought about quite a bit, while also consciously courting it.Yeah, I mean, that makes a ton of sense. For someone who was so adept at using cinematic language to describe her own life with every living being having a camera directly next to them at all times. It seems like we are very much living in a world that she had at least put a lot of thought into, even if the technology wasn't around for her to specifically address it.Yes, completely.On that note, where can folks find the book? Where can folks find you? What's the elevator pitch for why they ought to check this out? Joan Didion superfan or just rather novice?Exactly! I think this book is not just for the fans, let me put it that way. Certainly, I think anyone who considers themselves a Didion fan will have a lot to enjoy here. The stuff you didn't know, hadn't read or just a new way to think through her cultural impact. But also, this is really a book that's as much for people who are just interested in thinking about the world we live in today a little critically. It's certainly a biography of American political culture as much as it is of Didion. There's a great deal of Hollywood history in there as well. Thinking about that sweep of the American century and change is what the book is doing. It's very, very, very informed by what I do in my day job as a movie critic at The New York Times. Thinking about what movies mean, what do they tell us about ourselves? I think this is what this book does. I have been told it's very fun to read. So I'm happy about that. It's not ponderous at all, which is good. It's also not that long.It comes out March 11th from Live Right, which is a Norton imprint. There will be an audiobook at the end of May that I am reading, which I'm excited about. And I'll be on tour for a large amount of March on the East Coast. Then in California, there's a virtual date, and there's a good chance I'll be popping up elsewhere all year, too. Those updates will be on my social feeds, which are all @alissawilkinson on whatever platform except X, which is fine because I don't really post there anymore.Alyssa, thank you so much for coming on.Thank you so much.Edited by Crystal Wang.If you have anything you'd like to see in this Sunday special, shoot me an email. Comment below! Thanks for reading, and thanks so much for supporting Numlock.Thank you so much for becoming a paid subscriber! Send links to me on Twitter at @WaltHickey or email me with numbers, tips or feedback at walt@numlock.news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.numlock.com/subscribe

After my story Who Killed the Oscars was published in Tablet, I received this letter:Indeed, I didn't explain why I voted for Trump in the Tablet piece. It was already too long. No doubt many reading it thought, who cares what she thinks? She voted for Trump. I'm sure there was a time when I would have thought the same thing. I used to be a faithful, loyal Democrat. I used to be a cheerleader for Hollywood. I thought I would do anything for love. But I found out that there was one thing I couldn't do.But know this: it's never been a story about what happened to me. It's always been a story about what happened to the Left.So let's do a Part Two of the Tablet Piece and call it:Who Killed the Democratic Party?The first time I remember voting for the Democrats was back in the 1980s. I wore a Dukakis button as a Women's Only Health Spa receptionist. A customer saw my pin and said, “Why are you voting for Du-Tax-us?” I looked at her, confused. I didn't know why I was voting for him. “Never mind,” she said to me. “You probably never even went to college.”I knew enough back then that we were different from the Republicans. That political divide had lasted since Nixon's days. They were uncool and had all of the power. We were cool but had no power. We were the subversive side, the Blue Velvet to their Top Gun.That customer's words tumbled around in my head long enough to motivate me to go to college and finally graduate from UCLA at 29, the first person in my family to do so. While a student there, I saw Bill Clinton speak. All of that charisma suckered me in, and now I knew why I was a Democrat. It wasn't complicated. I'll have what he's having.After I dropped out of graduate film school to chase some loser dude back to Los Angeles, my life came apart so spectacularly that I escaped to migrate online, where I would work and live for the next 30 years.The internet changed everything. It gave so many of us a voice and a platform. Anyone could have a website online. Anyone could generate news. The question of who would control it was never asked because it was obvious. The Democrats did. We colonized it—the New Frontier in Cyberspace.Obama was as wedded to Silicon Valley as he was to Hollywood. I was in the right place at the right time, a Good Soldier for the Left as a member of a newly mobilized army on Twitter, rallying behind our leader, the nation's first Black president.We were more connected than ever before at a time when more people were alive than ever before. On the “inside,” things always felt so big, so monumental. On the “outside,” life went on as normal among “The Proles.” We were in the early stages of 1984 if Whole Foods catered it.It was an alignment of power not seen since the utopian days of post-war 1950s America when government and culture aligned to snuff out the Communist threat. With an iPhone in my pocket and high-speed internet, I did my duty every day as a Good Liberal fighting the good fight.It wasn't until Obama's re-election bid in 2012 that I understood I was part of a hive mind that could manipulate the media narrative and thus create the reality we wanted. We could stretch the truth—or lie—about, say, Mitt Romney and the “Binders of women,” and it worked. The legacy press would print our headlines. Clickbait would do the rest. Eventually, it trickled down into the homes of ordinary Americans.It wasn't just politics. It went much deeper than that. We were different people now, better people, good people doing things, something the Left never was throughout my entire life as a child of the counterculture 60s and 70s. But to be that good, we need to target people who were that bad. We needed a receptacle for our collective sins. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

This week, we can't help but fall victim to la bella luna as Feb2ary Is For Lovers continues with a classic rom-com about how it's impossible not to cheat if you're Italian. It's 1987's Moonstruck, directed by Norman Jewison, written by John Patrick Shanley, and starring Cher, Nicolas Cage, Vincent Gardenia, Olympia Dukakis, Danny Aiello, Julie Bovasso and John Mahoney. The story of a young woman who accidentally falls in love with her fiancé's brother, the movie exudes charm at every turn -- so much so that this little rom-com took home three Oscars in '88, for Cher and Dukakis's performances as well as Original Screenplay for Shanley's script that is funny without being rife with straight-up jokes. There are rich characters here, beset by curses and fatal strains of bad luck, who get laughs not by mugging or ripping one-line zingers but by believing in the seriousness of their tragedies so completely. This is character-driven comedy of the highest order, grounded by the Canadian coziness that Jewison can't help but leave all over the film. Plus: J Mo's got theatrical field reports on both Sonic The Hedgehog 3 and Companion. If you'd like to watch the film before listening along to our discussion, it is one of the more widely available films we have ever covered as Moonstruck is currently streaming in Canada on Amazon Prime, Crave, Starz, Criterion Channel, Tubi and Hoopla at the time of publication. Other works discussed in this episode include Abigail, The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, Identity, Trap, Fargo, The Wedding Singer, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning: Part One, Mission: Impossible - Fallout, Ocean's Eleven, L.A. Story, Paint, Napoleon Dynamite, ChiefsAholic: A Wolf in Chiefs Clothing, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, The Fabelmans, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Bicentennial Man, Bottoms and Punch-Drunk Love. Love Month continues next week with another VHS plucked from Hayley's collection as we'll be discussing 1996's Jerry Maguire with Tom Cruise and Renee Zellweger, and will do our best not to get side-tracked discussing the Mission: Impossible franchise but can't promise we won't. Jerry Maguire is currently streaming north of the border on Crave, Starz and for free (with ads) on the CTV app. And of course we're closing out February with a rom-com canon selection, 10 Things I Hate About You. Until then, we'll see you at the movies!!

Like Carter, Dukakis would go on to have a long, storied career after serving in public office. He shares perspective on the former president and his legacy.

As the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) prepares for a pivotal year ahead, this special episode takes a moment to reflect on the progress made in health care policy and the challenges and opportunities on the horizon. Join host Chip Kahn as he sits down with retiring Executive Vice President of Policy, Steve Speil, to discuss his nearly four decades of experience in health care policy and his reflections on his remarkable 27-year tenure at FAH.Steve's career has spanned transformative decades in health care, from his early days in Massachusetts state health planning to tackling the evolving complexities of hospital policy in Washington, D.C. His insights in health care policy and the hospital community's resilience shine a light on how far we've come—and the work still ahead to ensure patients have access to 24/7 care.In this episode, Chip and Steve discuss: Steve's Career Journey Leading to FAH: From a Master in Public Health to law school and a career spanning Massachusetts state health planning, the Dukakis administration, AdvaMed, and ultimately the Federation of American Hospitals.Early Days at FAH: A look back at the early years of Steve's time at FAH, navigating key regulations like IPPS and legislation including the Balanced Budget Act.Changing Landscape of Health Policy: Steve reflects on accomplishments during his tenure and insights into how hospital policy has evolved, now facing increased burdens.Opportunities Ahead: Steve discusses the continued resilience of hospitals in the face of challenges and the critical role of organizations like FAH in supporting hospitals and the communities they serve.Guest bio: In his capacity as Executive Vice President of Policy, Steve Speil manages the Federation's broad portfolio of payment policy issues. He serves as the association's chief liaison on these issues with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Working closely with the senior finance and policy executives in the Federation's member companies, Steve develops and carries out both issue-specific and general strategic plans designed to advance the finance and payment related regulatory and legislative interests of the FAH.Prior to joining the Federation, Steve served as Associate Vice President, Policy Coordination and Communication for the Health Industry Manufacturers Association (now AdvaMed), the national trade group representing the medical technology industry. Before moving to Washington, Steve held a succession of increasingly senior management and policy positions in Massachusetts. During his time in the Bay State, Steve served as Legal Counsel to the Lieutenant Governor, Legislative Counsel for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Executive Director of the Disabled Persons Protection Commission, and Legal Counsel and Policy Director in the Office of State Health Planning. Steve also taught health law and policy as an Assistant Professor at Simmons College Graduate Program of Health Administration.At the federal level, Steve served in the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs. He also worked in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of General Counsel.Steve earned a J.D. degree from American University's Washington College of Law; a Master in Public Health degree in Health Administration from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health; and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology/Zoology from the University of Michigan.

In this episode of Welcome to Cloulandia, We delve into a range of topics, starting with the impact of natural disasters like hurricanes, discussing their unpredictable effects and the challenges of recovery in affected areas. The conversation transitions into a discussion about health, where insights on traditional Chinese medicine and its approach to addressing common illnesses are shared. We highlight how ancient practices like herbal treatments and scraping therapy remain relevant today. We then explore a fascinating scientific discussion on fructose and its historical role in human survival, as well as its connection to modern health issues like diabetes and dementia. The implications of diet and sugar consumption are examined with insights from experts who have dedicated their careers to studying these links. Turning to technology, We discuss the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI), highlighting its potential in creative and practical applications SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Dan and I discuss the impact of hurricanes, focusing on their unpredictable effects and the recovery challenges faced by affected regions. I share insights on traditional Chinese medicine, including treatments like herbal remedies and scraping therapy, and how these methods address common health issues. We examine the role of fructose in human survival and its modern connections to health problems like diabetes and dementia, drawing on expert perspectives. We explore the evolving applications of artificial intelligence, discussing its potential in creative fields, communication, and education. The conversation touches on the limitations and risks of AI, including concerns about quality and the pace of technological adoption. We reflect on the technological history of politics, discussing how innovations like FM radio and cable television have influenced public discourse over time. We share observations on the psychological and societal effects of rapid technological advancements, including shifting expectations for speed and efficiency. The episode highlights examples of AI in action, such as automated customer service and editing tools, and their implications for productivity. Dan and I discuss the contextual complexity of decision-making, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple factors in understanding trends and behaviors. We conclude with reflections on how these topics intersect, offering a perspective on the evolving relationship between technology, society, and individual experiences. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan, you have survived the hurricane, I survived the hurricane. Yes, we actually got almost nothing in Winter Haven. Dan: Yes. Dean: Winter Haven lived up to its name. Dan: No, I checked the weather condition in Winter Haven just in case I'd have to send an emergency package. Dean: Yeah, emergency, that's right we ended up. It was very. You know, it's a perfect example of you know when the hurricanes are coming. Of course you start out with that. You know the national news oh boy, there's a hurricane brewing, there's a tropical storm, it's forming in the Caribbean right now, or it's forming below Mexico or below Cuba, and then every day this is intensifying all the language, all the total emotional language, and then this is going to be devastating. And then you see the big buzzsaw working its way through the Gulf of Mexico on its approach to the mainland, and it could go anywhere, dan the cone of probability. And this one luckily stayed far enough to the west that we really got nothing. I mean, I got one band of wind and rain. It was like one of the outer perimeter bands, but not to say that it wasn't a devastating hurricane, because the whole the Gulf Coast, like in Tampa and St Petersburg and especially up in the Panhandle, they got really like rocked with this. And then North Carolina is getting pummeled with flooding and I mean like unbelievable stuff that's going on. Yeah, it's wild. You know our friend Chad Jenkins. He's got a place in, or had a place in, the mountains and the whole road going into the community just washed away, you know those guys are gonna be. I mean it's gonna be a long cleanup to get up from under all the flooding and stuff that's happened in North Carolina and most of you know Georgia and North Florida, but just shows you what it was? Dan: Well, it must have gone pretty far north, because Joe Polish was doing an event, supposedly today. Dean: In Cincinnati, yeah. Dan: In Cincinnati and the stage got destroyed. Dean: I saw that. The whole event, so it got pretty far north yes, yeah, because cincinnati I mean I think two things there, right that that's. Most people don't realize actually how far south cincinnati is, as you know, you know, it's almost kentucky, basically kentucky. Dan: So yeah, you can see. Well, comington is right across the river. You know Exactly. Dean: But still. Dan: I mean compared to Florida, it's pretty far north. Dean: Oh yeah, You're absolutely right. Yeah, you're home safe. Dan: Oh yeah, yeah, no, it's been nice here, it's been you know we've had probably the classic summer in September this year, I mean here it is almost the end of the month and all the leaves are completely green. We have a big Lots of leaves. We have lots of leaves with big oak trees that we have in our compound. We have six or seven, I think, seven big, seven big trees. But, nothing's turned yet, none of the colors have started yet, but it's been warm. It's been. You know, yesterday was 73, 74, which is great. Dean: It's the best. It's the best. Dan: Yeah, it's been terrific, and yeah sorry you couldn't make it to. Dean: Genius Phoenix, yeah. Dan: It was great. It was great. Who'd you catch that call from? I forget. Dean: Oh my goodness, Super spreader, super spreader Sullivan, that's you. Dan: Yeah, what was that? But? Dean: that came on fast. Dan: You know he. Dean: We had brunch on Saturday were there was nothing going on. We had dinner sunday night at your house and then monday, you were like full in the throes of it. And then we had dinner monday night and of course I was right beside you and by by Wednesday I went downhill, you know, and I could tell that it was coming on bad and I was supposed to speak at Giovanni's big event in the Arcane Summit, but I could tell I was going downhill. And then, thursday I switched my flight to come back to Florida because the original plan was I was going to speak at Giovanni's event and then on Sunday, fly to Phoenix for to be with you guys. Dan: Yeah, but anyway I made it home. Dean: I made it home just in time. I went full immersion in you know self-care, nipping in the bud, I think the warm, moist air really a lot to get rid of it yeah, well, you still sound like you, I was just gonna say you still sound yeah, no, I still, yeah, I still have it. Dan: Yeah. So we went to we have a really great chinese doctor here in toronto and uh you know, he does everything through pulse and he took my pulse and yeah his name's dr zhao and you know I've got a track record going back 20 years where you try this, it doesn't work. You try this, it doesn't work. You go to a doctor, it doesn't work. Then you go to dr zhao and within three or four days, then take these little. Dean: I went to a chinese doctor one time. No, they're herb. Dan: He gives you little packets of herbs and you make them like coffee and it's foul tasting, as it should be, and three or four. I can feel myself coring up already. I went on Friday and we have a Vietnamese massage therapist going back 30 years now. She's been with us since 32 years and she does scraping. Do you know what scraping is? Dean: I do not. Dan: Is that? No, it's. You know, she scrapes the skin hard. You know it's hard. Yeah, it's painful, it's actually quite painful. She did it on me. I just came from that about an hour ago. Dean: What is she scraping it with? Dan: Well, I don't know what it is. It's like stones. A special tool, it's like stones, oh, like bones. Yeah, sharp stones, you know. Dean: Bone things. Dan: yeah, and she doesn't take the scalp. You know she doesn. She doesn't take your scalp off, she just scrapes your back and scrapes your chest and it releases all the phlegm. You know the interesting word phlegm? So Chinese and Vietnamese in a space of three days and I'll be as good as new on Wednesday. In about a week. Takes about two or three days. Takes about two or three days you know I'm very, you know I've got a lot of compartments in my brain and people say you don't believe in that stuff. No, I do. And I said I think it works, even if you don't believe in it. Dean: Right, that's exactly it. Dan: Yeah. Dean: It's not up for debate. That's funny. Yeah, well, you went to the Chinese have. Dan: yeah, well, you went to the chinese have lasted. Dean: The chinese have lasted a long time, you know, and I guess some of it works did you go to canyon ranch? Dan: this time no we just we went to richard rossi's. Oh, that's what it was, I knew there was something yeah yeah, what was the big. Dean: It was good. Yeah, what was the big yeah, there he had to. Dan: Richard is just terrific in his curating of scientists. You know, he had a lot of scientists come in and talk and we had two especially one of them around 70. And he's been looking into the impact of fructose pretty well for 60 or 70, 50 or 60 years. And he really says that fructose is basically involved in anything bad that happens to you. You know, almost every kind of ailment and disease there's a fructose trigger to it. And he said and it was once a very good thing, when you know, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago, when we couldn't count on food, you know the food supply was not a predictable thing and he's just traced it to three or four genes. That got changed back in the prehistoric times when it was very necessary to stock up on fruit. You know, eat fruit as much as you could before the famine season came, usually winter, you know, sort of. You know there wasn't any food. And Buddy said then it's, you know, it was good at one time, but now we're in different conditions and now it's a problem. So anyway, he was great and I'm going to have him as a speaker at CoachCon 26 in Orlando. His name's Richard Johnson. Yeah, fascinating guy. Yeah, fascinating guy. And his whole career has been based on taking his research as far as he can and then finding someone in the world who has mastered the whole area that he's just entered. And he does a collaboration with them and then they create something new, and his whole career has been these collaborations with people who are more expert at what he's just discovered. And then they together do something even beyond what either of them have done before. So he's going to do one day on fructose and he's going to do the next day on collaboration. Dean: Oh wow, is he mad at fruit? Is he mad at fruit? Is fruit considered the same thing or is he talking about? No, it's Coke, it's Coca-Cola. Dan: That's what I mean. Like the fructose corn syrup, but not naturally. No, he's not against fruit. He the process, the intense fructose that they use, you know, to get people addicted to other kinds of foods yes, oh exactly, yeah yeah wow, but it was very interesting just how step by step, how step, he tracked down sort of the culprit. You know, and he said that pretty well, almost anything bad that can happen you. There's a fructose trigger in it. And you know and he said that pretty well, almost anything bad that can happen to you. There is a fructose trigger in it. And you know, then, including dementia, like including dementia and well diabetes leads to dementia. You know. They now have a pretty clear connection between diabetes and dementia. Dean: And yeah, that was what they're saying. I heard somebody refer to it as pre-dementia. Diabetes is pre. Like you know, everybody's walking around with pre-diabetes and the next level of diabetes is pre-dementia. Dan: Yeah, yeah, and then pre-dementia is pre-presidency. Dean: Oh my goodness, exactly. It's almost like a requirement. Dan: It's almost like a requirement. It's almost like a requirement. It's almost like a merit badge. Yeah, when we're coming down the stretch it shows one thing We've had a virtually uncapable person in the White House for four years and the country still runs. That's what I mean. Dean: That's what I really see. I think it's yeah. Dan: I mean, I don't think it gives you the sense of momentum that probably a good president would do. But here we are, you know, and who knows who's actually been making the decisions for the last four years. You know, it's an interesting test case, you know. Yeah, I don't think the israelis could get away with that oh my goodness, I just saw I think, they need someone. I think they need somebody right on the job, you know in the moment at all times they don't have much margin for error no, exactly yeah, that's wild huh. Dean: Well, I mean, uh, I just saw you were coming now into october, very around the heels here. So we're coming down the home stretch ready for the october surprise. Dan, everybody is all wondering what's the October surprise going to be, you know? Dan: Yeah, there may be no surprise. Dean: That could be the surprise, right there. Dan: Yeah, yeah, it's hard. It's hard to, you know, impose the past on the future. You know I mean it may, nothing may happen, it may just go along the way it is. Nothing may happen, it may just go along the way it is. But I feel that the Kamala is losing ground. Each week I get a feeling that there's this kind of erosion. that's happening week by week but she doesn't have any message. As a matter of fact, she's avoiding messages and I think it's hard to get the ground troops excited when you don't have a message. It's hard to get you. You know it's hard to get the check writers interested, probably in the last 33 or 34 weeks when you don't have a message. Dean: One of my favorite things that happened was I don't know whether it was an official ad or whether it was a meme, but it was Kamala saying if Donald Trump wins, there'll be the largest mass deportation in American history. Can you imagine what that would even look like? And then it ends and it goes. I'm Donald Trump. I approve this message. How perfect is that. Dan: Can you even imagine what that would look like? I'm Donald Trump. I approve this message. Dean: How perfect is that? Can you even imagine what that would look like? I'm Donald Trump. I approve this message. Dan: I think he's a rascal. Dean: But that's like so funny. Now we're getting somewhere. Dan: Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah. Even my opponent is working for my campaign. Dean: Exactly. Oh my goodness, so funny. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you know, I think that there's kind of like an American center at any given time, like yeah, this is my yeah. What is it I started voting in? 68 was the first year that I voted. First presidential election because it was. The voting age was 21 when I was 20 and 64. I was 20 and 60. So I couldn't vote for the presidency in 64, so I had to wait until 68. And so you know, that's a whole number of years. It's 32, it's 56 years, so this is my 14th election and the thing is that at any given point there's sort of a center to things and I think the center moves around. But the person whose activities and message most corresponds to the American center during presidential year wins. You know, they just win I think it moves and I think America is a bit of an ADD country, you know that hyper, focusing on something different. you know every presidential cycle something and I just get the sense that there's she's not in the center. You know, you get a feeling that what she says and how she talks about it, it's just not in the center. Dean: Oh, and there was another ad showing. You know it was taking her words from 2020 and then exactly saying the opposite right now. Like every you know so like, thing after thing, her complete change on positions. You know it's pretty wild to see when you and she says things with such conviction and matter of fact it's like there can be no other way than this. Like how do? you not see this as the thing, and then she's saying it with the same tone and the same conviction the exact opposite thing. It's pretty amazing. I started watching last night, about halfway through, a documentary about Lee Atwater. Does that sound familiar? He? Dan: was quite Lee really changed American politics. Dean: Yeah, I didn't really know about him. I'd heard the name, of course, but yeah, this documentary really kind of digs into it. I didn't realize he was Karl Rove's mentor and so pivotal in Ronald Reagan and the Bushes. Dan: Yeah, he was the first of the take no prisoners, so there's a lot of shenanigans going on, so there's always been shenanigans. Dean: I guess that's really the thing Whenever the stakes are high, clever people are going to dream up shenanigans. Dan: Yeah, he was the one who George Bush Sr the outrouter was this is 88, 1988. Dean: Yeah. Dan: And he took down Dukakis in about three weeks. Yes, dukakis was kind of a, you know he was a governor of Massachusetts and sort of solid you know solid record and everything else. But boy, he was not prepared at all for the type of things that happen when you run for president, I mean when it's nationwide governor who's been basically in one state for all his political career, you know, just doesn't have the experience to deal with what can happen on a national level. I think that's one of the things that gives Trump the edge, I think is the fact that this is his third complete national campaign. So you know, from everything I've read about him and everything, I think he's a fast learner. You know he adjusts quickly to new circumstances, and so I think that just understanding how the entire campaign works, in it. you know it really starts about 18 months before the election day and you know to know exactly, step by step, what's happening, I think is a huge advantage. Dean: And it became clear watching the Lee Atwater thing that it's really it's most with what I was, you know, thinking, reading in same as ever. You know where the whole thing is, that good news takes, you know, build slowly and against resistance, and bad news gets is immediate, and that was what his thing was, what he found, what he said he found fascinating is you could end somebody's entire career in a day, that it could all fall apart. You just had the right thing that hits the right chord and it catches fire. And in another election he was accused or suspected of arranging this third party candidate to say the things that the primary candidate couldn't say, draw attention to this candidate's lack of belief in God, and it was really something. Dan: I think he died around 90, 1991. He got cancer or something. He died young. I mean he wasn't very old. I think he was in his 40s when he died. It's really interesting when you look at the technological basis for politics and you know the left, you know, goes frantic. Left and right is an event. I don't know if you know where left wing and right wing or the listeners do. It comes from the French Revolution. Dean: The French. Dan: Revolution, they had a national assembly and on the right were the traditional landowners in France. So these were families that maybe for half a millennia had owned land and there was always suspicion in how rich people got their land back then. You know, you never knew how they got their land. And then there was the church, and the church was on the side of the landowners. And then there was the government, you know the monarchy. They were the supporters of the monarchy and they were on the right, and the ones on the left were actually the new news media, the new intellectual class and actually the bureaucrats, the new bureaucrats who you know the state was getting big and you had these bureaucrats and they were on the left. And so that's really you know where that term right wing and left wing really starts, and and you know it's gone through different shapes and forms over the last 250 years or so. And but what I believe is that after the Second World War, the mainstream of the university were basically the mainstream and they were actually. Today we would say that they were sort of left wing and there really wasn't any right wing. There really wasn't right wing, because they controlled the magazines, they controlled the newspapers, they controlled the radio. Television was just, you know, just in its infancy, and there was one technological change that actually brought what we call the right wing today to the forefront, and it was FM radio. And FM radio was possible in the 1930s or 1940s. They already knew the technology of it, but that NBC, which was the dominant network. Back then you had ABC, cbs and NBC, but NBC was the dominant and they didn't want FM radio. So they literally stopped it for 30 years and then the government had to overrule them and allow FM radio to exist. And when FM radio came in it became the radios of the big city because it's got very limited bandwidth. Dean: You know it reaches. Dan: I don't know bandwidth, I mean FM doesn't go more than about 30 miles. Pardon me, but it became the radio station of the universities and the big cities. Dean: New York. Dan: Chicago, boston and everything else, and they moved out of AM radio and they said we don't want that small town stuff, am radios. So they left a vacuum. What we would call the left wing today moved to FM radio like national public radio is all FM radio, which is left wing. The NPR is the left wing medium. Based on today's landscape it's left wing and it just left the entire right wing with many more stations, but they had tremendous reach, like AM radio. You know, on a clear night in Ohio when I was a kid, I could get New Orleans, I could get St Louis, I could get Chicago, I could get New York, Philadelphia and I could get the charlatan radio from Mexico. Yeah, mean that was a million watt, million watt, radio station. Dean: So you had these really powerful radio stations and they were just abandoned was the idea behind fm, that it it was a shorter length but a higher quality signal. Is that what was? Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, and you know, and it was available. So all these bandwidths were taken over by big city stations because you couldn't get the reach. You know you couldn't get the reach, but what you could make up with it was a denser population. So you would have a, you know, a big city would have a much denser population. So you would have a big city would have a much denser population. And what these stations got taken over by were religious congregations, preachers and everything like that, and they were against the mainstream government. Know, that's where Rush Limbaugh came along. you know he became the and Billy Graham came along. Dean: Right. Am radio is where you often think about. That was you know became talk radio. That's really where that all started, right. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Democratic left in the United States just lost its control of AM radio, you know, and that was a big technological change. And then cable television came in. Of course you could have any kind of station, TV station. Dean: So there was a technological basis to politics technological basis to politics. Yeah, this is. I was listening. I've just been exposed in the last week here to the I think it's called Google Notebook, and it's the AI that you can load up you know some text or you know information into train, the kind of whatever the language tool is that it's drawing from, and it will create a podcast that's two people talking and explaining. You're making content about what you load up, for instance, like I just thought you know, it's pretty like it's amazing to hear these no, I listened to it. Dan: I listened to it. Oh, you did okay for the first time. Dean: Yeah, hamish what's? Dan: hamish mcdonald's. Uh, yeah, yeah, it was a particular piece of legislation in. Prince Edward Island. And so the government was using Google notebook to explain it, and it's a man and a woman talking to each other. And they said, and I mean the discussion quality and the voice quality was really terrific Like it sounds like two real people but the thing was they were just uniformly enthusiastic and positive about the regulation or the regulations that were doing that and that was my tee off that this is phony. Not phony, but artificial, right, you know I mean. I mean artificial. One of the meanings of artificial is phony. You know and everything. But it was really interesting to listen to it and I think it's good for education, explaining things you know. Dean: Yes, yeah. Dan: Because they go back and forth with each other, so I thought it was pretty good. Dean: Huh, and just like. So you look at this as this, if this is crawling, you know, if you look at that as the beginning of it, because that's the first I've seen of that capability. It's really pretty. It's really pretty amazing what we're up against. Just to put it in context, I heard someone talking about where we are now, the new I don't know how they number them, but the 0.01 or 01 or whatever now is the latest level of it context of a scale like the phases, the level five kind of thing, being the peak. You know, general intelligence, that that knows everything, this 101 or 10 or whatever it is. It was just tested at 120 IQ, which is higher than 91% of the population. Dan: And it means that 91% of the population isn't going to understand it. Dean: That could be. I mean, that's exactly right. Dan: Or listen to it. Yeah, but they're saying that if we look at the scale. Dean: If we look at the scale from 1 to 5, we're at about 2 right now, on the way to 5 by say 20 or whatever. Dan: I don't know really what that means. Iq 120 about what? Yeah, I mean. Dean: Yeah, I don't know I mean even IQ itself. Dan: You know it's being more and more discounted, as you know, as any kind of, I mean. What it means is pattern recognition. I think the Q now comes back to pattern. But, for example, above 150, I mean there's's people, there's an organization called mensa I mean yeah, you know which is people? I think it's 160 or above and what they find is that they're kind of dismal failures. You know, yeah, you know. Dean: No, I heard a thing that the actual, most, the most beneficial iq is about 125. Dan: that it gets in the way yeah, yeah, yeah, I think it's the practical realm, the practical realm is 120 to 140. And you know that people think better than other people, but they also make better decisions and they take better actions. I think that's probably the realm, and it's very interesting when they compare all the IQ tests of men and women. They have different curves. And so there's far more males below 100 than there are females in relationship to how many males. So a higher percentage of males are below 120 or below 100 and a much bigger percentage of males are above 140. And the women control the area between 100 and 140. I mean just statistically based on yeah, and so the idiots and the geniuses men have they struggle, that's funny, I had them. Dean: so, yeah, I, yeah, I did. Years ago as an adult, though, I did my IQ just for fun, to see what. See where I'm at, and it's always 140, and which was see where I'm at. I was 140, which was very superior intelligence, dan, they call it VVSI on the tip of the I knew that the moment I met you. That's so funny. Yeah, I don't know what that means. Dan: It was a good choice of restaurants. It was on Avenue Road. Dean: That's exactly right, yes, yeah, that's right. Yeah, boba, yeah, yeah, so funny. So I think that this I remember saying to you a few years ago. I remember somebody tweeting which I thought was funny. They were saying however bullish you are about AI and circa 2030, you are insufficiently bullish, is what they were saying, and I thought those words just struck me as funny. But now we're starting to see, like, because that was even before ai, that was before t came out, because that's really only it's. It'll be two years in november, right that we? got the very first, 30th, 30th of november well, the very first sorry, that's okay the very first taste of it. And look at how it's changed in two years. You can only imagine what it's going to be in 2030. Dan: But I don't see any real impact of it out in the world. I don't see any impact. Dean: Yeah, let's talk about that. It's not obvious. Dan: Yeah. Dean: I don't see anything. Dan: Yeah, my sense is that we're sort of in a tinkering stage right now and that you give AI to one person and they do something with it. You give it to another person and they do something different with it. You give it to a million people and a million people do a million different things with it, but I don't see any unity or focus to it whatsoever, any unity or focus to it whatsoever. And it's bothering the investment markets, like Goldman Sachs, the big investment bank, who they're sort of alert to trends in the market because that's how they make their money. They said that they're very disappointed that in two years there's been billions and billions and billions of dollars spent in corporations bringing in AI, but they don't see any results whatsoever yet. So I think it's. My sense is that it's having a great impact, but it's not measurable by standard economic standards. It's not measurable, it's invisible standards. Dean: It's not measurable, it's invisible, right, and I I wonder, like you know, I've been talking about and thinking about this. You know I almost liken it to the way when the iphone came out. We had all the capabilities that went with it, right, like the gyroscope and the geographic, you know, knowing where you are geographically and the accelerometer and the touch screen and all of those capabilities that it could do, and, of course, the first things that people did was make games that you could you know, the other thing is photography yeah photography really changed huh, and now you see, like yeah, because now the, but being able. The big difference now with the ai is the sort of generative creativity, the photography and the things. I was laughed. There was about several years ago when AI was first start of sort of really getting legs. Before GPT, there were just the micro capabilities that AI was using. There was a website, and still is called thispersondoesnotexistcom, and every time you push refresh on the thing it creates a new image, photo image of a person that is an amalgam of all of the photo. You know millions of photos, and so it just is infinitely combining characteristics and hair color, hairstyle, eye color, skin tone, facial features, all of that to make a unique person that does not exist. Those are now along with the. When you couple that with the capability now of creating video avatars, like the AI videos, that you can have them say your script you know in, and it looks like a real person doing those things and it's just. I think, as all these capabilities come together, it's going to be a lot like the app store, where people are going to corral these capabilities into a very specific outcome. You know that you can. You know that you can tap into. I mean what a time to be a creative right now, you know, in terms of having vision and being able to pair up with infinite capabilities. Dan: Yeah, it's kind of you know I mean, there's some interesting insights about that that you're still constrained by one thing, because that on the receiving end of all this, people can still only think about one thing at a time. Okay, and you know so, you're not going to speed up anybody's intelligence on the receiving end. You may speed up your intelligence on the grave, but you're not going to speed. As a matter of fact, you may be dumbing them down at the other end. But what I think it's going to do is big systems. I mean, one of the great big systems that's been created over the last probably 50, 60 years is air traffic control. So there's not been a commercial accident in the air. I think it. You know, it may be 15, 20 years, I don't know. The last time, two planes collided in the air Right, right Like a collision in the air. And there you know, if you go back to the 30s, 40s and 50s, there were quite a few, you know, fog or something and everything like that, and so I think it's going to be big systems, like big electrical systems. That's where you're going to see the impact. I don't think it's going to be at the individual level. I think it's going to be at the big system level, and my sense is the Israelis are doing a lot of this at the big system level and my sense is the Israelis are doing a lot of this. I think the Israelis and you know the precision bombing they're doing now is really quite extraordinary, like they killed the head of Hezbollah on Friday. Dean: I just saw that. I saw something about that. I didn't have a chance to dig in, but that guy yeah. Dan: And they? First of all, they phoned everybody in the neighborhood within 500 meters and they said get out within the next 20 minutes because we're going to be bombing some buildings. So they have everybody's phone number. like in Beirut and Lebanon, they've got everybody's text number and phone number and they just mail them and says you know, get out of your building because there's bombs coming, you know. And so it was colossal. They cleared a block. I mean, when you look at it's three buildings and there's nothing but rubble and everything like that, well, there are hundreds of people around there. I think two people got killed and you know 50, 50 were injured, but I think you know typically technology leaps ahead in warfare, you know 50-50, we're injured, but I think you know typically technology leaps ahead in warfare, you know that's number one. Number two is games, you know, and the gaming industry is probably using this extraordinarily quickly and you know, and other forms of entertainment, other forms of entertainment, that's where it happens. But yeah, I'm not seeing the big jump. You know, I hear, you know Peter Diamandis sends out this is going to happen. And then you extrapolate in a straight line Well, because they're IQ 120, you know, in five years is going to be IQ 180. But most humans with 180 IQ are pretty worthless yeah you know they can't change a tire. You know they have problems in practice, right exactly yeah, they become more impractical and it's not clear that, beyond a certain amount of it, that intelligence is that great an advantage? You know, I don't know, I'm not, you know I'm, don't know, I'm not, you know, I'm just not convinced. Yet I mean, I use, you know, perplexity, and you know I really like perplexity because it gives me nice answers to things. I'm interested in, but not once has anything I've done on perplexity actually entered into my work. Dean: Right, you know it's Stuart Bell who runs my 90-minute book team. You know we were having a conversation about it and you know they're integrating into the editing process some. Dan: AI. Dean: So the first two passes of editing are now AI. First two passes of editing are now AI and he was amazed actually at how good it is. Most of the time the editing process is reductive, meaning that there's less. You put in this many words and you come out with something less than that many words. But this past, the way they've got it going now is it actually is a little bit expansive and you come out with about 10 more words than what it was, but reads. But reads very, you know very easily. So so he's very impressed with the way that's gone and it happens in moments rather than days of going through a traditional editing process. That was always the biggest time constraint. Dan: Bottleneck is the editing process, but that means that you can only charge less for it. Time constraint, bottleneck is the editing process, you know. Dean: Yeah, but that means that you can only charge less for it. I mean, let me just pose a counter possibility. Wait a second now yeah, possibility. Dan: I had a lawyer once and he said everything went to hell in the legal industry when fax machines came in, and he was explaining this to me that he said it used to be that you'd go and have a meeting with the client and then you'd go back and he would grant you three or four days to make revisions and then you know, send it by courier and over yeah and he noticed that over the first two years of fax they expected the revisions to be back that day so if things speed up people's expectations. People's expectations jump to saying well, you know, you just ran that through the ai, so why should I pay you for? You know I would. It take you three minutes to do this, you know why should I but? You put yeah. So my sense is that there's an economic factor that doesn't increase when the speed increases. Actually, the economic factor decreases as the speed increases. You know it used to be that they gave you two weeks to come up with a. You know a script for a play. Now they want it back an hour after you've talked you know, because they say well, we're not. We know you're using the ai and so you know we expect it to happen sooner you watch. I mean, we'll just keep track of this on our podcast as we go over yeah, but once you have a tech, once you have a speedier technology, people's expectation of speed goes up to match what other evidence is there for that? Dean: what other analogs? Dan: well, fax machine, yeah, fax machines and an email. Yeah, email very definitely, but the world hasn't slowed down with faster technology. Dean: No. Dan: No, everything's gotten faster. It's like sugar. Dean: Yeah, sugar. Dan: Everything speeds up. Everything speeds up with sugar. Dean: Yes, exactly, I don't know. Dan: You know, all I know is, in my 50 years of being an entrepreneur, I don't feel I've ever been at a disadvantage by adjusting to technology slowly. Dean: Yeah, it's just I just see now, if you take the through line of where things are going. Like I was really kind of amazed by this couple on that Google Notebook podcast, Like just that as a capability is pretty amazing. You know, I think you know and you're seeing now, those AI, you know telephony things where you can talk to an AI. Dan: A lot of it is things in sales they're doing. Chris johnson yeah, chris johnson in prezone really has an amazing. It's a calling service yeah so he had 32 callers and now he's got five callers and that's a real noticeable thing. And the software and I he gave a an example is about a minute and a half of the caller calling a woman and she's got it. It's. She's got a slight accent I can't quite tell what the accent is, you know, and but she's very responsive. You know she's very responsive and their voice modulation goes up and down in response to the person who answers the phone call you know, and, as a matter of fact, he's the person who answered the phone sounded like a real deadhead. So we were about halfway through and I said to Chris. I said which one's the robot? I can't quite tell. Dean: Which one is the? Dan: robot. The person who answered the phone was just really dead. He was really monotonic and everything like that. Dean: But the caller. Dan: She says, oh well, she says you know. She says you indicated interest in finding out more what our company does. And I'm just calling to schedule where we can give you a little bit more information. I'm not the person who does that. I'm just going to set up a meeting where someone can talk to you and it won't last more than 10 minutes, but they're really experts, and so I'm looking at the schedule for tomorrow and I've got 10 o'clock and I've got 3 o'clock. Would one of them be useful for you? He said something like 3 o'clock and I've got three o'clock. Would one of them be useful for you? He said you know something like three o'clock. He says, good, I'll put you in there. And he said you know, we just want to give you the kind of information that would indicate if you want to go further in that and everything like that. So thanks a lot for this and it was really good. But that that AI program can make 25,000 calls a minute. Dean: That's crazy isn't it? Dan: In other words, if people answered the phone as a result of sending this out, you could have 1,000 people talking at the same time. Now, I see that as a real breakthrough. Dean: Yeah, agreed, I mean that's kind of ridiculous. but yeah you think about that? I you know, when I started out in real estate I would do. I was making a hundred cold calls a day, but I was doing a survey. Was my, was my approach right? So I was saying the same thing. My idea was that I was going to call through the phone book for Georgetown, but I didn't want to, and then I would make a record of I had little or D, and I would only, of course, then follow up with the ones who were willing, happy and had a potential need in the future. That was my game plan and I would make these calls. I was just thinking now how easy it would be for an AI to do that now, like I would just call people. I'd say hey, mr Sullivan, it's Dean Jackson calling from Royal LePage. We're doing a quick area market survey. I wonder if you have a minute to be included, and most of the time they'd say no, or sometimes they'd say yes. But even if they said no, or I would just say it's just five questions that take one minute, I promise, and most people would go along with that and then I would just ask them have you lived in Georgetown for more than five years and how many years in your current house and how'd you happen to choose Georgetown? And then, if you were to move, would you stay within Georgetown or would you move out of the area? And then, whatever they said, I said when would that be? When would that be? That was the punchline of the whole thing and it was so. You know, it was so amazing, but I could you imagine making 25 000 of those calls in one minute. You call george, every household in geor, those calls in one minute. You call every household in Georgetown in one minute and identify all the people who were, because I could imagine an AI saying having that exact interaction that I just shared with you, right? Oh yeah, just the yeah, we're just doing an area market survey. Wonder if you'd have a minute. It's just five questions, one minute, I promise, and then go right into it. I mean that's pretty amazing. You know, if that's a possibility, that's a pretty. Dan: Well, I think you know. I mean, here's where you're. You know we're at the crawling stage with it, but again it all depends on whether people answer the phone or not, right? Dean: We're finding about a third. So we've got a lot of our realtors and others are, you know, following up with people who request books. So when they dial about a third of the people will answer the phone. Dan: Basically you just never reach me. But yeah, my sense about this is that there's very definitely an increase in quantity and I'm not convinced yet that there's an increase in quality, you know right. Right, you know quality of experience and so, for example, you know quality of experience and so, for example, what Hamish McDonald was sending me had to do with the piece of legislation, because there's something that they want to do and it requires following the rules of government ministry. But it was a little too cheerful and enthusiastic. I found the couple's talk. There would be no negatives in it. And I've never had any experience with government that didn't have a negative in it. So, from a possibility. Dean: I wonder if you could have. I wonder if you could, you know, prompt one person to take the positive one, to take the negative or debate it. Dan: You know, debate fun to take the negative or debate it. Yeah, you know, debate could be, you know, yeah, but my, my sense is that we get better at spotting dishonesty. You know like yeah, my sense, I think one of the like I. I have people who use ai all the time and you know, and they send me something and I read it and then we have a discussion over the over Zoom usually, and I'll say I didn't quite get it from what you wrote. There was something missing from. So I'm just going to ask you a whole bunch of questions like content wise. But the context is the real. You know, context is hard to grasp unless you're telling the truth, you know, and the reason is because you have to be touching about 10 different points, and one of the things I find with perplexity the AI is I've got this sort of way of approaching and perplexity always has to tell me 10 things about the subject I'm interested in. Okay, so 10 things. For example, I asked, I put in 10 reasons why evs are not being adopted as quickly as was predicted okay and 10 and phew, 10 of them, and you could see that each of them was a little bit of a game stopper. But when you put all 10 of them together it really gave you a sense of why there's a lot of late nights in the EV world right now, trying to figure out why things aren't happening as fast as they could be. So that's a contextual answer. It's not just, and what I've discovered from working with perplexity is there's no reason. There's no one reason for anything in the world. There's always at least 10 reasons why something happens or why something doesn't happen, and everything else. Dean: Yeah. Dan: I'm being educated. I'm being educated, but it's just something that's developed in the relationship between me and the AI. You know, because if you say what are the reasons why AI is not or E-MAT being adopted as quickly as we thought, I think the answer that came back would be very different from my tell me 10 reasons, because it just does what you ask it to do. That's exactly it. Dean: All of it has to. You have to have somebody driving. Yeah, holy cow, it's top of the hour. Dan, that's so funny. I put up a post on Facebook today about just before we got. I told you, ai makes things happen faster it really does just even our real life conversation when you talk about AI, the hour just speeds by. Dan: It really does anyway. Yeah well, you know it's a forever subject because we're going to be with it from now on. Dean: I think that's true, yeah. Yeah, love it All right. Well, you have a great day, all right, and I will talk to you next week. Okay, Thanks, Bye.

We're back with another episode of The Option Block brought to you by tastytrade. On this episode, we: Discuss the latest in the markets including the election Talk about the most active equity options for the day Look at earnings season volatility including PLTR Examine the latest unusual options activity in GSAT, ON, TIGR Explain how to lock in gains and protect them And much more With your hosts: Mark Longo,  The Options Insider Media Group Andrew "The Rock Lobster" Giovinazzi, The Option Pit “Uncle” Mike Tosaw, St. Charles Wealth Management

We've come to the end. Here I give you the canonical list and ranking of EVERY SINGLE LOSER of all time, including many who never even ran. Listen to find out more.  In this episode I talk about the could-have-been Presidents Adams, Adams, Agnew, Anderson, Barkley, Bell, Blaine, Bono, Breckinridge, Brown, Bryan, Buchanan, Burr, Bush, Butler, Calhoun, Carter, Cass, Cheney, Clay, Cleveland, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Colfax, Cox, Crawford, Crockett, Curtis, Dallas, Davis, Dawes, Debs, Dewey, Disney, Dole, Douglas, Dukakis, Eastwood, Ellmaker, Fairbanks, Fillmore, Ford, Ford, Forrest, Franken, Franklin, Fremont, Garner, Gerry, Goldwater, Gore, Greeley, Hamilton, Hamlin, Hancock, Harrison, Harrison, Hearst, Hendricks, Hobart, Hoover, Houston, Hughes, Humphrey, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Johnson, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kerry, King, King, La Follette, Landon, Lindbergh, Long, MacArthur, Mangum, Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, McCain, McCarthy, McClellan, McGovern, Mondale, Morton, Nader, Nixon, Parker, Pence, Perot, Pinckney, Quayle, Redford, Rice Atchison, Rockefeller, Rockefeller, Romney, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Scott, Seymour, Sherman, Sherman, Smith, Smith, Springer, Stassen, Stevenson, Stevenson, Taft, Taney, Temple Black, Thurmond, Tilden, Tompkins, Trump, Van Buren, Ventura, Wallace, Wallace, Weaver, Webster, Wheeler, Wheeler, White, Willkie, Wilson, Winfrey, and Wirt.  God Bless America!  

We're back with another episode of The Option Block brought to you by tastytrade. On this episode, we: Discuss the latest in the markets including the election Talk about the most active equity options for the day Look at earnings season volatility including PLTR Examine the latest unusual options activity in GSAT, ON, TIGR Explain how to lock in gains and protect them And much more With your hosts: Mark Longo,  The Options Insider Media Group Andrew "The Rock Lobster" Giovinazzi, The Option Pit “Uncle” Mike Tosaw, St. Charles Wealth Management

It's election season! Do you know who you're voting for??? Well, we here at PMoN are never disappointed with politicians because we have such a deep love and admirations for puppets everywhere! Sorry, bad joke. But this election season we choose puppets every time with our review of D.C. Follies! This short-lived political satire show from the 1980's featured caricature puppets of some of the country's most powerful politicians and celebrities, and boy is it...something. As another edition of Ben and Will watch for the first time, this is quite an interesting one. Will this topical sketch comedy series win the popular vote, or will its cutting-edge humor from the year Ben was born crash and burn in the electoral college? You'll just have to listen to find out.  GO VOTE! DUKAKIS '88! Join the discussion on our discord! https://discord.gg/JDtWJrhPF6Follow us on twitter @PMoNPodcast and  Instagram and Threads @puppetmastersofnoneFind out more about the puppet masters on our website: https://puppetmastersofnone.wixsite.com/puppetmastersofnoneOriginal Music Composed by Taetro. @Taetro  https://www.taetro.com/Send us a text

It's been 13,197 days since Michael Dukakis turned a photo-op into the most disastrous “self-own” of presidential campaigns. Dukakis turns 91 this weekend and is finally feeling redeemed after Donald Trump's garbage truck ride around the tarmac at the airport in Green Bay on Wednesday. Plus: Vice President Harris hits hard on the unity theme in Madison. UpNorthNews with Pat Kreitlow airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-8 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to https://civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and Instagram to keep up with Pat & the show! Guest: Joe Zepecki

Is this "Dukakis-in-the-tank" moment of the 2024 campaign? Almost certainly not, but it's gotta be close

The image of 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis riding in a tank has become synonymous with abject public relations failure. For marketers and PR practitioners, it serves as an enduring reminder of the power that our mistakes have to burn down powerful people and institutions in one moment of lapsed judgment. And in the spirit of the upcoming election, in this episode we'll explore what led up to the catastrophe, and its lasting impact on the world of public relations and marketing, with one Democrat and one Republican, both of whom worked in the White House. Josh King was a junior staffer on the campaign trail for Team Dukakis '88. He went on to serve as White House events director under Democratic President Bill Clinton. And Kevin Sullivan was the White House spokesman under the 43rd president, Republican George W. Bush. Together, they'll shed light on the political legend of Dukakis in a tank, offer up a glimpse behind the scenes of the Clinton and Bush administrations, and remind us of a few other times when the republic teetered on the brink of PR calamity.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

WYNK: There's a soft underbelly to the Kamala Harris boom - I have been saying this since she became the nominee. She was propped up by the media, but now that the excitement has died down, we can see that she does not have very much going for her. Now, with RFK endorsing Trump, many ethnic Catholic Americans are switching over to Trump. The teamsters are now in favor of Trump, and the democrats are worried. Kamala Harris has nothing in common with the everyday working American. The fact that the teamsters made public that 60% of them support Trump tells you everything you need to know. The Amish, college fraternities, and black males are moving to Trump, registering to vote and getting ready to put Trump in office. Kamala Dukakis is tanking. John Schlafly, co-author of the weekly Schlafly Report, joins Ed to give a preview of this week's column about how Bide and Harris are using Zelensky as a campaign prop. After Dick Cheney's endorsement of VP Harris, it is clear that she is the warmonger candidate. Tim Hale, January 6 patriot and representative for the Patriot Freedom Project, joins Ed to discuss how the felony charge against him is likely to be dropped. After SCOTUS ruled that the 1512 charge was being used improperly in the felony charges against J6 defendants. Hale reflects on the lawfare attacks against him and other January 6 protestors, and what can change going forward. Col. John Mills (Ret.), author of War Against the Deep State and The Nation Will Follow, joins Ed to discuss the election. He discusses his greatest fears about the election, and how important it is to get people behind the counter to ensure a fair election. Volunteer to be a poll officer! He gives his prediction on the election, and how we will not know who has really won until January.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Democrat support from Jewish voters has dipped to the lowest level since Dukakis ran for president. Plus the latest on Trump and Harris campaigning, and today's top stories on Hour 2 of the Friday Bob Rose Show for 9-13-24

Vice President George H. W. Bush is Ronald Reagan's heir apparent. But in order to defeat Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, Bush must embrace Reagan's conservatism, get the best of a respected primary challenger named Bob Dole, and escape the shadow of what many call the biggest political scandal since Watergate. *** To listen to the entire series—all 59 episodes—right now and ad-free, become a subscriber at IntoHistory.com, a channel of history podcasts made just for history lovers like you. Enjoy ad-free listening, early releases, bonus content and more, only available at IntoHistory.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Howie shares a play-by-play of Saturday's MassGOP Reorganization Meeting. Then, he talks the Dukakis party at Northeastern University and more.

"Read My Lips , No New Taxes!!" , the most famous words George H. W. Bush ever uttered. He said it at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he struggled to unite his party for the coming race for President against a surging Michael Dukakis, Governor of Massachusetts.  Dukakis was a whopping 20 points ahead of George Bush the sitting Vice President. While Ronald Reagan had grown to have a good relationship with his Vice President, those around Reagan and the conservative wing of the Republican Party he represented did not trust George Bush. He had to bring them into the fold if he had any hope of catching and defeating Michael Dukakis. So Bush made a promise, a promise he would have to break for the betterment of the country. He would live to hear those words again. This is the story of the 1990 Budget Deal that led to George Bush reneging on his promise to not raise taxes. It would lay the groundwork for much of the division among the various factions within the Republican Party that still lingers to this day.  Robert Cahaly, of the Trafalgar Group National Polling Firm, says much of what you see today in the modern political landscape is found in the coming 1992 election divisions that would eventually cost George H. W. Bush his Presidency. As he points out the Ross Perot voters of then are Republicans now, and 20% of the Republicans then are Democrats now. The decision to go back on that pledge had a profound effect on the Republican Party.  It led to the "America First" anti establishment campaign of Pat Buchanan, and in the remnants of that campaign are the seeds of the rise of another political figure nearly three decades later, President Donald Trump.  That is a story we will tell in our next season of shows but for now here is where it all started. In this episode we go back to the very start of it all, the 1990 Budget Deal that may very well have laid the groundwork for the boom of the 1990s, but it did so at the expense of the unifying principles of the old Republican Party, and in that split, lay the seeds of the populist party of Donald Trump we see today.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Dukakis gets a less than helpful piece of advice from a friend. A surprising VP choice. Plus, an update on the show. JOIN The Patreon for My History Can Beat Up Your Politics and Become one of the elite listeners who get extra tidbits, special episodes and sometimes previews. http:www.patreon.com/mhcbuyp It can be as little as $3 per month. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In our final episode of our six-part series on the 1988 Presidential Election, Vice President Bush has a lead over Mike Dukakis. It's close enough for a comeback though, and more than a few have suggestions for a different Dukakis message. A series of mistakes will doom the campaign. And that is the traditional way the story is told. But we suggest there they may been an invisible election going on under the surface. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“So you're voting for Du-taxus?” a woman said to me in 1988. I was a lowly receptionist at a gym called “Women Only,” which was probably later sued out of business. I had to answer the phone with, “We have the way, Women Only, this is Sasha, may I help you?”I was undoubtedly blurting out this mouthful when the client noticed my Dukakis pin, because why wouldn't she? I told her yes, I was, though I wasn't “political” back then, and I had no idea why I was voting for Dukakis. He was a Democrat. Being a Democrat wasn't something I chose. It was something I was. Some guy I was dating probably handed me the pin and told me to wear it, so I complied.Understandably annoyed, the woman said, “Figures. You probably never even went to college.” I remember this story all of these years later because it's still surprising to me that a Republican would insult a Democrat's lack of education. But it tells you everything you need to know about who had the power back then and who didn't.After that, I was determined to cobble together my many city college credits and attend UCLA. I would graduate as a transfer student at the age of 29. I was older than everyone else, but I was the first person in my family to graduate. Now, I was prepared for any sudden encounter with an elitist Republican. Get full access to Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone at sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

The millennial with the mic tackles the top headlines in conservative news. Tune in to the Grace Curley Show weekdays from 12 to 3 or catch the show later wherever you get your podcasts.

Filling in for the Millennial with the Mic is the official gun guru of the Grace Curley Show, Toby Leary! Toby covers what's going on in the Bay State in regards to Gov. Maura Healey's immigration policy (or lack thereof). Toby shares a funny (terrifying) anecdote about the Army v. Navy game.

This week, DTW bravely returns yet again to the 80s for a highly essential work starring Cher and Nic Cage.  But Dan and Raul were pleasantly surprised to find the movie is about much more than the stars and not just a run-of-the-mill rom-com…we follow the trials and tribulations of an entire NYC Italian family filled with many interesting characters.  Yeah, there had to be a discussion about the title ‘Moonstruck' and what that exactly means, but the movie makes us understand with many songs and dialogue references to the actual moon, too!  Come for Cher, stay for Dukakis, and after listening to this pod, you surely will be able to answer her eternal question, “Why do men chase women?” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/downtopod/message

Shownotes and Transcript Dr Steve Turley has been enjoying the liberal meltdown in his recent videos and he joins us to give us an analysis of what is happening.  The legal case against President Trump keeps hitting roadblocks making all those with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' so mad.  Whatever they throw at 'The Don' just boosts his poll numbers.  And the J6 narrative is unravelling with all the footage being released by the new House Speaker.  Even Vivek is openly opposing the liberal consensus.  And with Biden's poll ratings tanking and Alex Jones returning to Twitter there is much to be joyful about. Steve Turley (PhD, Durham University) is an internationally recognized scholar, speaker, and author who is widely considered one of the most exciting voices in today's growing patriot movement. Dr. Steve's popular YouTube channel has over 1 million subscribers and daily showcases his expertise in the rise of nationalism, populism, and traditionalism throughout the world. His videos, podcasts and writings on civilization, society, culture, education, and the arts are widely renowned. Connect with Dr Steve and join the movement of Courageous Patriots... WEBSITE:           https://turleytalks.com/ X:                        https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks YOUTUBE:         https://www.youtube.com/@DrSteveTurleyTV PODCASTS:       https://podcasts.apple.com/am/podcast/turley-talks/id1520478046 Interview recorded 14.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ TRANSCRIPTS   https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts....  SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Dr. Steve Turley, it's wonderful to have you back. Thanks so much for joining us once again. The honour's all mine, Peter. It's great to be back with you. Good to have you. And of course, if people are not following you, which I can't imagine, but in case they're not, at @DrTurleyTalks is your Twitter or X, however you want to call it, and @DrSteveTurleyTV on YouTube. And of course, turleytalks.com is the website, turleytalks.com. All those are in the description, whether we have people watching on different media or whether they're listening on the podcasting apps on the go. Everything is in the description. Now, Dr. Steve, one of your titles of your videos caught my eye. Many of them catch my eye and many of the thumbnails catch my eye as well. But it was the, has the liberal media meltdown begun?  And there are a lot of things happening, I think, to be hopeful about. And of course, you often bring out a hopeful side where I think sometimes we may be guilty of seeing the doom and gloom and the negative. So yeah, you're challenging the narrative on so many issues. I think I wanted to pick up on some of those, the collapse of the narratives that we've seen. And maybe we can start on the legal case against President Trump. And obviously this is to make sure he does not run because he is the biggest threat to the establishment. And that seems to be unravelling. Do you want to maybe let us know, again, half our audience is US, half is UK, but let us know what's been happening on that legal side? Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. So, you know, there's been several indictments against President Trump, but the main one, the one that's kind of leading it all is what's known as his J6 indictment, his, an indictment for supposedly criminal behaviour in a deliberate attempt to overthrow a Democrat election on January 6th, where our electors are certified and legitimated by Congress. We go by an electoral college here. You need 270 electoral votes to win. Every state in our 50 states has a certain number of electoral votes. And then you send electors, 270 of them, you win. That's basically, you send them to Washington, D.C., they get confirmed, they get certified, legitimated by Congress, and you win. And there was a debate back a few years when this was happening of whether or not the vice president is the presider over the proceedings could actually reject electors largely because of ongoing controversies in their states or whether or not you could send alternative electors based on those controversies from your state. And then the vice president has leeway. He has some freedom to determine which electors is going to be, is going to recognize. That's all just part of the debate. I think it's relatively settled. We do have it historically. It's been over 100 years, but we do have some precedent where the vice president can come in and exercise some, shall we say, judicial privilege in determining which electors he's going to receive or send back and then have the state work out the issue and then come back at another date, say, you know, January 18th or whatever, just set an arbitrary date for those states to work out whatever, uh, election controversy is issues. They still have that, uh, play out. Well. Trump is being accused of criminal behaviour in promoting alternative electors and promoting the vice president to reject the electors that were sent because of the controversy surrounding the November 3rd election. And Jack Smith is the special counsel who is leading these charges. He has a history of pushing, as I understand it, bogus charges against people. He has a very, very bad overturning rate when it goes through the appellate process, the appeals court, the higher up court. A lot of his convictions actually get overturned because he seems to be a little bit on the seedy side of things. Anyway, what happened is that Trump's lawyers filed for appeals against Judge Chutkan's decision not to grant him or not to recognize his immunity as president. And Chutkan is also a very controversial figure. She's considered very radical, left-wing and the like. And the D.C. court circuit is seen as very radical and left wing and the like. So what Trump's lawyers have been doing is they filed these appeals to higher up courts, the appellate court process to overturn Chutkan. And now they the the appeal process may reject those appeals and send it back to Chutkan's court. But as long as those appeals are playing themselves out, Chutkan can no longer conduct court. She no longer has jurisdiction over the issue, over Trump and the litigation that he's facing as long as this appeals process goes on. Now, Jack Smith knew that was going to happen. And this appeals process can take months. He knew that was going to happen. So he kind of, we have the expression here. He jumped the shark. It comes from a happy days. The old, if you guys all know the old happy days sitcom with Fonzie and all that, when they, when their ratings were tanking. They had a program devoted to Fonzie getting on some jet skis and jumping over a shark area. And I forget it was in Hawaii or something like that. It was just this absurd attempt to try to get, garner attention or try to get people to take them seriously again. Well, Jack Smith has jumped the shark. He's taking Trump's immunity claim all the way directly to the Supreme Court. He's actually bypassing all appellate courts, going directly to the Supreme Court. And then the Supreme Court said, fine, yeah, we'll take a look at it. But we're not going to tell you when we're going to rule. And that ruling could be this summer. It could be next. It could be the following year. We just don't know. It just depends when they put on the dock. So what happened is Jack Smith demanded, basically, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, You got to settle it. Whatever your decision is, you got to settle it in this session, this Supreme Court session. He never explained why they had to settle it in the Supreme Court. He never explained why such a decision was needed to be hastened and the like. And we all know why, because he needs it before the 2024 election. So he's basically overtly admitting that this whole thing is a political sham, that the court trial is scheduled right now for March 4th. Nobody thinks that's even remotely going to happen, not even remote, even before all of these appeals were being filed. Now that it's in the hands of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court usually doesn't, you know, they don't publish their decisions until the summer. They'll make a decision now, but they won't publish it till the summer. Nobody's even taking that date seriously. And so it looks like Trump won't even be in trial before the 2024 elections. And so Jack Smith, Chutkan and Biden, they're all, even DeSantis in a sense, because the only way DeSantis could ever possibly have a chance is if Trump was somehow removed because he was convicted, which wouldn't even happen in and of itself. You can vote for anybody you want as president here in the States. I mean, we see it all around the world, Lula in Brazil, or even Netanyahu in Israel. I mean, there's plenty of people have been indicted who get who get elected no problem so anyway the uh right now you just have the weaponized legalist proponents with egg on their face and Trump looks like he's going to he's going to cruise through 2024 as things stand now we'll see what they come up with in terms of trying to take him out.  Yeah because I always wondered why DeSantis was running I assumed that he was expecting the legal case to move forward and Trump to be stopped. But the more legal issues are thrown at Trump, the more successful he is doing in the polls. And I can imagine some strategists, there must be a few of them somewhere in the Democrat Party, wondering what we're trying is not happening. And the last thing, I guess, the opponents want is Trump in court months before election, because that simply plays to his supporter base over a deep state. You got it. And I don't think they understood this. It's part of, I get, I think we're seeing the same thing in Britain. Our ruling class just occupies such a different cultural space than the rest of the population, the vast majority of the population. They didn't recognize that when they took a mugshot of Trump, they would be moving him from one cultural sphere into another cultural sphere. Prior to the mugshot, he was a New York billionaire president. After the mugshot, he suddenly shared an experience that many people, particularly in our underclass, have experienced or know someone. So if you ask anybody in our inner cities, how many New York billionaire presidents do you know? Zero. But if you ask them, well, how many people do you know who've been unfairly targeted by the man? Who've had mugshots, been arrested? Well, all of a sudden that number goes up exponentially. So Trump in just that one act, in that one picture too, you know, pictures are worth thousands of words, in that one act, the deep state where they recognized him or not moved him from one cultural space where he's actually in many ways very much removed and aloof from your average citizen to another cultural space that has tremendous amount in common with your, you know, your average citizen. So that's where the populism starts to kick in. They don't recognize that we're going through a legitimacy crisis right now. I think it's both Europe, particularly Western Europe and the United States, where every poll shows that virtually all of our public institutions, from our government to our media, to our judicial systems, all are haemorrhaging trust and confidence among the people. If I recall, there was Matthew Goodwin, a good British scholar, I'm sure you know him. He did, in his book on nationalist populism, they did a study back in the 1960s, 70% of Brits saw the government operating for the good of most or all. Today, it's basically 19%. I mean, it's just literally plummeted. And in the United States, it's even worse. In many respects, the United States may be the single most divided country on the planet right now. I mean, that's not an exaggeration. The gap that exists between our ruling elite and the people is growing more and more by the day. And that's precisely why I think every time you see Trump becoming a victim of weaponized legalism his polls go up every single time. And I couldn't agree with you more. I think if he got convicted it might be the biggest landslide we've ever seen. How does the J6 narrative fit in this because the footage is out, speaker of the house released it all. I thought Tucker had released it but maybe I don't know, the speaker has now released it. And you put a video out, could it actually be your latest video on Vivek Ramaswamy on with CNN and challenging the J6 narrative and taking great joy in the fact that maybe CNN viewers had never come across this before and enjoyed that platform. But how much does the J6 narrative and the videos release that information? How much does that fit in with kind of where Trump is and maybe challenging some of the narrative going against him? It is. Well, again, J6 was used and we talk a lot about, say, like what happened with Alex Jones. J6 was used against Trump very much like the Sandy Hook shooting was used against Alex Jones. It was an effective tool that the regime uses to isolate and seclude dissent. That's a very, very important technique. We can develop that a bit more. So J6 was for three years, almost three years now, right? It was a very effective weapon against not just Trump, but the whole MAGA movement and America First that we're all in the end insurrectionists. That's what we are. Give us a chance and we'll just overthrow the government and install some authoritarian despotic rule. That is falling apart. That's just collapsing, especially, like you said, with the larger footage that Tucker had released when he was with Fox and just more and more of the footage that's been coming out via the network society where we have instantaneous access to digital information, bypassing the legacy media, the way email bypasses the post office, basically. So I think Vivek did a good job in that. In that CNN slaughter was, I think he articulated the process that a lot of people were going through. If you had asked me three years ago, you know, did the FBI set up a bunch of well-meaning, but perhaps overzealous patriots, I would have, I would never have believed it. But then, of course, we had the whole Russian collusion fraud of 2016, and that cost us $30 million with a special counsel and the like. We had the whole Jussie Smollett race victim hoax. We had the whole Brett Kavanaugh is a racist. We had the whole COVID lab leak theory is nothing but a conspiracy theory. We had the Covenant Catholic school kids were a bunch of racists at a pro-life rally, of course. Racists at a pro-life rally, you just let that hit you. Every life is sacred, but darn it, I'm a racist. Right. You know, the notion that Hunter Biden's laptop was just Russian disinformation. Suddenly people start to say, wait a minute, we we're getting lied to all the time here. Maybe there is something to this J6 setup. And so I think that's in many respects, as I know, just on a personal note, I can't even count the amount of people I've talked to who've told me. They always thought so-and-so was a crackpot who believed in a deep state and conspiracy theories and so forth. And he said, I'm a believer now. After all of this, I'm an absolute believer. And then the polls are proving it. The vast majority of voters here do believe the FBI had some involvement in it. And of course, we have court documents that prove there were FBI agents in informants among the crowd. There's still no confirmation of how many. There's a Louisiana Congressman who believes there's upwards of 200 that were in the crowd. And so the entrapment charge seems to be pretty clear. You know, we have a governor Whitmer, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and there was a whole like conspiracy to kidnap her. We're finding out that was a conspiracy that was actually constructed and concocted by by the FBI to entrap some, I guess, militia members or people part of a patriot movement out there. And they were, I think all of them were exonerated in court and the juries were very apologetic. They even had to go through this. So more and more people recognize, yeah, there is a deep state that does try to entrap its citizens in a manner comparable to a Banana Republic. And now you have a president, former president, who's the chief opposition candidate, who's being literally trumped up with bogus charges. And they're recognizing something's not right here. And the de-legitimation continues to go on. That's the key. I think the division in our nation grows with every passing day. And you've done a number of videos on Biden's poll ratings. I mean, you've got years worth of footage, basically, if you look at those poll numbers dropping, dropping. Obviously, everyone says, well, it's the economy, stupid. Generally, that's what hits election chances. But then with everything else coming in, along with Biden being, not knowing what day of the week it is, never mind when he is being led off stage. How do all those factors play? Is it simply inflation or is it all those other factors that are playing into those? I mean, horrendous poll numbers. Yeah, no, I think so. I think you set that up well. I think something much deeper is going on.  Again Matthew Goodwin, I think, caught it very well in his book on national populism. If people haven't read that, yeah... I went to his book launch. I loved it  Yeah it's, Matthews... I don't know if you've had him on your program, we got to have him on our our respective programs because he is really, and he and he's, well I should finish my sentence. He's really doing excellent work and he's bearing a lot of criticism from the woke academic world that says you're not allowed to even think in the categories. Eric Kaufman is another one at the University of London, a Canadian expat out there. Yeah, Matthew would call it a realignment, political realignment. I think it's absolutely right. I think you're seeing very same things happening both across the pond, both sides of the pond. Back in 1960, 50% of the British population ascribed very strong loyalty to one of the major parties, either Tories or Labour. Again, that figure today has dropped to like 10%. I think it was like 13%, exactly. Just a huge, huge drop. We're seeing something comparable here. What's happening is that because both parties, in our case, Republicans and Democrats, are just perceived as just occupying just such a different cultural space from their constituents, it's opening up opportunities. I think it was Eric Kaufman who actually refers to them as bootleggers. It's opening up opportunities for bootleggers, right? So a bootlegger, You know, just for just we're all clear, you know, here in the States, we banned alcohol for a while during Prohibition. And bootleggers were the ones that provided alcohol in the black market for people who wanted it. When people want something, but the government isn't providing it, they're going to go and look for bootleggers to get it. What we're seeing all throughout Europe, all throughout Europe, 300% increase in nationalist populist parties just over the last 10 years, and they're winning, right? You guys are no longer in the EU because of a bootlegger. We're seeing bootleggers rise up. We're seeing third, what I like to call third party candidates that is outside of your centre right, centre left parties rising up and giving the people, voicing the concerns of the people. I mean, you just had that amazing election in the Netherlands a couple of weeks back with Geert Wilders. I mean, I honestly believe, there was a time I thought he could pull it off back in 2017. I think it was the last major election. It could have been at the tail end of 2016, where he's really, really close. And then Mark Ruda ended up basically stealing his platform. And they were able to paint him as the extremist and blah, blah, blah. Those days are done. People see the establishment as the extremists because the establishment refuses to represent their values, interests, and concerns and continue to represent the values, interests, and concerns of the elite ruling class. Again, I think it was Matthew Goodwin. I'm going to fudge the data. I don't have it exactly in my head, but there was a Chatham House, the think tank study that found that it was something like 60, 70% of MPs believe that immigration is always good, whereas only about 20% of the voting population believe the same. So the discrepancy between the worldviews is so dramatic. What we have to understand here in the United States, Trump is a third-party candidate that won a major party nomination. He's not a Republican. He's not a George W. Bush. He ran against George W. Bush. He ran, and you're seeing it now with Nikki Haley and Chris, Chris, Christie, sorry, I always say Krispy Kreme. We have a donut shop here called Krispy Kreme. So Krispy, we also call him Taco Bell. You know, I, sorry, we've all been Trump-ized here, you know, but he turns everything into a WWE match, but yeah, he, you know, Trump is running against the establishment, Republican establishment, every bit as much as he's running against the Democrats, he's a third party candidate. Who got a major party nomination. And so you can't, in my opinion, a real assessment of what's going on can't limit the dynamics solely to the economy. You have to see this radical realignment happening as well. And that's what we're seeing. We saw it in 2016 with the white working class who had always voted Democrat in every single presidential election since 1988. Iowa, for example, voted for Mike Dukakis back in 88 when George Herbert Walker Bush got over 400 electoral votes. They were one of the 10 states that voted for Dukakis. Well, today, as of 2016, they're now voting 10, 20% for Trump. We had almost 200 counties in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, very, very white working class counties that had voted for every Democrat candidate since 1988, suddenly switch en masse and vote for Trump, some with a 40-point swing. We saw, again, very similar dynamics happening during Brexit with the working class vote in Britain, as well as the December 2019 national elections where you had regions voting for the Tories that had never voted for the Tories, ever. And Boris Johnson, of course, destroyed that coalition because he's again, he's part of this aloof cultural class that might play populist, but it fell apart. And again, I think the Republicans are experiencing the same thing. Hence why. And to me, this is very important. When you put in a candidate other than Trump, the polls all re-equalize. Now all the Democrat constituents go back to the Democrats. Ohio is in play if you get rid of Trump. I've seen polls, if you put DeSantis in there, you put Chris Christie. Biden wins Ohio in a landslide. Very, very working class state that goes about 10 points pro-Trump. Would suddenly either be a swing state or would turn blue. So I think it's more than just the economy. I think it's this mass realignment of the working class toward a Trumpist populist paradigm. And now we're seeing the non-white working class join up with that. Obama won the non-white working class with a 70% margin back in 2012.  Biden now has the non-white working class. He's winning them by only a 10% margin. So it's a stunning collapse. And they're not swinging to Republicans. They're swinging to Trump. So that's why Trump has got to do what Boris Johnson failed to do. And that is he's going to to have to, if he wins, he's going to have to command the authority to turn the Republican Party into a fully nationalist, populist, traditionalist party. As long as they remain globalist, their fate, I think, is going to be the same as the Tories. I agree. And you touch on immigration. I think immigration is a key thing because here, our conservative party have promised tens of thousands of our immigration numbers and we're now up to 700,000. And the same there. I mean, Texas could build a wall and they're still arguing, discussing it. So I think that's a key issue. And I think that's, I mean, we even, I think you put a video up recently, even CNN having to read out those poll numbers and announce Trump ahead in a number of states. And I know we've had we've had Brandon Straka on before, the walk away campaign and Democrats beginning to realize that this is not the party they signed up to. And tell us about that, because it's the left media beginning to admit what the polls are telling them. And that is because Democrats are walking away. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. That's it. When we'll set it down, the Democrat coalition's unravelling. That's one of the reasons why Biden is is is falling apart. And the only gift we could give them is to put someone other than Trump in. If you want to realign their coalition, that'll do it because voters don't trust Republicans and Republicans are giving them a wonderful opportunities not to trust them. They try. They tend to stab them in the back every chance they get. Yeah, we've had a couple of some sort of really impressive studies of late. There was something called a split ticket analytics study. That was a meta study of national trends going on politically. And then Democracy Corps did more of a micro study of late on just the battleground states. So again, because we're an electoral college, we're all clear because we're an electoral college system. Forget California, they're going to vote blue. Forget Texas, it's going to vote red. Florida's going to vote red. Blue states, and sorry, our blue is liberal, right? And our red is conservative. I know it's the opposite there. Right, exactly. But hopefully everyone could translate, right? Just mirror it. And so for us, it comes down to about seven purple states, right? So that'll work. Seven purple states. They could go either way. And what is so fascinating, particularly in that democracy core study, is they really looked at the battlegrounds. And that's what we try to do in our polls. We try to look at what's going on nationally, some national trends, but then you're going to have to drill down and see if those trends are corroborated and what's going on in the battleground states. Because Biden could be doing great nationally. He might be up two, three points in a poll, but that's only because the poll is skewed more to the population centres in LA and San Francisco and New York and Chicago. They're they're going to vote blue no matter what. The question is, what's going on in those purple states? And when you look at the purple states, it really does look like the Democrat coalition has unravelled. When they divide up their voter demographics and they look at Gen Z and millennial voters, when you break them down by race, so you get really nitty gritty in the demographic breakdown. Gen Z white voters favour Trump by 30 points. It's stunning. Now, these are more or less you're under 30 voters, to make it simple. And millennials, I think, are between 30 and 40, something like that. So Trump is winning the white Gen Z vote. And again, overwhelmingly by 30 votes. The white millennials are voting for Trump by 20 points. Latino voters in the battleground states, Trump is winning them. He's winning them by three points. Nationally, it's Biden by around five points, but that represents a 20 point decline from 2020. When it comes to blacks, this is probably the most astonishing number. Trump right now has black support. Even the New York Times has admitted that no Republican has seen in half a century. He's up around 20 points. It's just we haven't seen this with any Republican candidate. Biden right now nationally. He's winning the black vote with 52% of the vote But that's down 30 points from 2020. He won the black vote far above that 85-90%. So Trump is seeing black support like we've not seen before. Women, I mean the battleground polling shows that Trump actually has a 25 point lead among not just white women, but even unmarried white women. It's the unmarried. We, married women tend to vote Republican in the United States. They tend to be much more traditionalist. It's the unmarried women that tend to be the Republicans women problem. They talk about unmarried white women now are with Trump by 25 by 25 points. We're even finding that he's within the hair's breadth of winning the college vote, those with college degrees. So in the United States, I'm sure it's comparable in Britain, there's a tremendous political difference between those who have college degrees and those who don't, so-called working class. And working class right now are just overwhelmingly voting Trump and are increasingly voting Republican, whereas the college degrees tend to overwhelmingly vote liberal. They kind of got what we say they got woke. You know, that's not going on in 2024. Now, Trump is even leading actually among women with college degrees, white women with college degrees. It's just, so we're seeing, in effect, the Democrat coalition just unravel right before for our very eyes. And now, yeah, you have articles coming out on CNN saying Joe Biden has an electoral math problem. I mean, it's a nice way of saying he can't win as these polls are playing themselves up, because it's not that Trump just has leads in these battleground states. He has leads that are far beyond the margin of fraud, which is around one or two percent. You can play around with the vote up to about 1% or 2%. Beyond that, there's really... You know, you've exhausted all the precincts that you can suck out some extra votes from. So he's winning by four, six, eight, 10 percent in these battleground state polls. And there's just, they're freaking out. They know they can't do 2020 again with the massive mail-in ballot campaign that they had. So they're left to the weaponized legalism to try to take Trump out through through a conviction, but like you said earlier, convict him, as things stand with this process of de-legitimation his poll numbers are even going to go higher.  Well you, that's the meltdown on the political side and the legal side and a massive part to disseminate information is the media and you've done quite a bit also on the meltdown in the media, specifically the woke media. I think nothing signifies that more than Alex Jones going back on X or Twitter. And Musk said he would put it out to the polls. Here in the UK, we've seen our most probably high-profile controversial figures would be Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, and they have both also been reinstated to Twitter. Tell us about that, because it is a joy to watch the left freaking out at free speech being allowed to reign. Yeah, and just let that hit you, right? Just so that a free press, a free media is freaking out over free speech. It's, I mean, what's up is down, what's down is up. Yeah, well, I think we all know what they're really freaking out about. And they're finding their mechanisms, their tools of social control being wrenched away from them. They are ultimately upset that Elon Musk is effectively disrupting one of the regime's most important tools of social control, which is the establishment's ability to isolate dissent. Silencing dissent seems to involve two things. When you read scholars of censorship, they focus on these two dynamics quite often. I've found this very, very fascinating because we all focus on one dynamic, and that's the censorship proper, knocking somebody off the platform. We saw that with, obviously, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson alike. We saw it with Alex Jones. Just, you remove the microphone. That's it. You turn off the microphone, knock them off, problem solved, right? Well, scholars have noticed when you go all around the world and you look at censorship techniques from authoritarian governments. No, they know that the person is popular enough. You could turn off their microphone, but they're still going to have an audience. You can still have public meetups, right? Email lists, direct mail, whatever. There's all kinds of ways you can still drum up social dissent if the person is popular enough. So that's why it can't just be the censorship proper. There's another step to this, and authoritarian regimes use this all the time. It's what leftist dissidents like Noam Chomsky refers to as manufactured consent. And this is largely the role of the Western media. This is the role the Western media has been given, as it were, by the establishment or is carved out for itself by the establishment. What our legacy media does here is they put forward a uniformity of not narrative. It doesn't matter if you're looking at ABC, NBC, CBS, or channel four, BBC, or whatever. It doesn't matter what you're looking at. It is a uniform narrative. Everyone is reading off the same script. That's very important because if everyone is reading off the same script, no one person is saying it. That's very important, right? Our founding fathers had a saying that we need to hang together or else we're going to hang separately. They were going against the crown, as it were. And that's very much the principle. We need to hang together. We need a uniform message. And that way, no one person is saying it. We're all saying it. And that uniform message, Noam Chomsky did a very, very good job in analyzing this. The uniform message plays, it always plays off of pre-existing sentiments, pre-existing loyalties, prejudices, whatever you want to call them. But the key is that the narrative, the uniform narrative, manipulates those pre-existing sentiments in such a way that strengthens the power of the regime. And that's exactly what they did to Alex Jones. The media unilaterally depicted Jones. And again, that's the key. Everybody is saying it. He's a crackpot. He's a crazed conspiracy theorist. He's a threat to democracy. He's a Putin stooge.  He wants you to poison yourselves in the midst of a pandemic. And the piece de resistance, he is a cruel harasser of parents mourning over their murdered children. That was the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, actually, which happened about 15 minutes from where I grew up in Connecticut. So the key here is that the uniformity of the media's message deliberately creates, it aims to try to create a massive us, we the people, versus a very tiny, small them, or in this case, him or her. And the reason why they're doing it, massing that kind of support, ironically, playing off of our sensibilities of poor parents who are mourning their kids and so on. The reason why they're doing that is to silence any and all dissent against the regime. So that's the key. It's not just the censorship. That's bad enough. But again, if the person's popular enough, they'll find other ways of reaching people. No, no, no. Manufactured consent is the means by which you destroy that popularity. The media's unanimous narrative that deliberately seeks to isolate and thereby silence any and all dissent from the regime is its principal tool to increase its power and its manipulation. And so I think that's why it seemed to, for so long, work so well with Alex Jones. He seemed to have been pushed off the stage, and Tommy Robinson seems to have been pushed off that stage. Again, it's not just the microphone that got silenced. People didn't want to be be associated with them anymore because of this uniform narrative that plays on our sensibilities in such a way that exploits them to increase the power of the regime. That's the key. And so what did Elon Musk do? He provided a massive communication network platform that invites these personalities back and thereby disrupts the unanimity of the media's narrative. And destroys their ability to isolate and seclude dissent. That's the key, I think, to the significance of what Elon has done. And notice now what they're doing to Elon. It's the same thing. It is. And to finish off on this, you've got the schizophrenia of the legacy media. I mean, I saw Piers Morgan in the UK was interviewing Zuby, the rapper, And they were discussing Alex Jones and Piers was saying, well, how dare you? How can you have Alex Jones on Twitter? And they're arguing about whether you could or not. But then I think back, well, Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show maybe six months ago, eight months ago. So he's happy to have him on his show because the left realise it's a boost of, I mean, the left must have been, the media must have been so sad whenever Trump didn't turn up at those primaries. because it does boost that rating. And going into election year, they want Trump, but they don't. That's the same thing, the debate on the social media. I mean, Twitter actually being free, that is a game changer. Not that Twitter is where everyone finds, it is part of society, but everything else, you've got TikTok, you've got so many avenues of information. And I think I'm curious to see how those play out in an election year with the mainstream media being desperate to get a glimpse of Trump for their ratings, but the new media, the Twitter is actually opening up and free speech reining. Yeah, you're absolutely right, Peter. We talk about a lot on the channel, this phenomenon known as the network society. We are moving into a very quickly, if not, we're already there, I think in many respects, we're in a whole different social order in many ways. So back in the day, social order was primarily determined by proximity. And so in the 19th century, early 20th century, it's where the great cities, industrialized cities amassed. And then we had a whole media world rise up around them, you know, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal. They all revolve around these massive population centres, because if you wanted to go anywhere in the world for like, you know, if you want to go up the social ladder, you had to be where the action was happening. If I want to make it in the country music, I had to move to Nashville. Or if I want to make it in finance, I had to move to Wall Street or London. If I want to make it in gambling, I had to move over to Las Vegas. You had to be where the action is happening. We don't have to do that anymore. One of the most famous singers right now is Oliver Anthony. You probably see the rich men north of Richmond. And Oliver Anthony became this massive, massive country music hit, not by making it big in Nashville, not by getting signed by any kind of New York record executive. He made it big because of a camcorder and YouTube singing in his backyard in rural Virginia. And he ends up on the Joe Rogan show.  Exactly, exactly. Who again, and you just keep pushing that, who again is an independent content creator, totally independent of any kind of major network and so forth. So what we're living in the midst of now is the recalibration society, not around proximity, but around networks. So all you need is access to the network, namely the internet, just like you and I are doing right now. We're across the pond from each other, and yet I feel like I'm closer to you than somebody just 10 feet away from me over here. We now have access to what's going on, irrespective of proximity. You don't have to be where things are. You just have to tap into what things are, as it were. And what does that mean? That means now we all have access to disestablish, decentralize digital information instantaneously. We don't need a legacy media mediating it for us. They don't have a monopoly over that information anymore. The first pictures of some event around the world don't come to us from satellite trucks with CBS News splashed across the windows. They come from people's smartphones. Everybody with a phone is now a cameraman and everybody with a social media platform is now a commentator. We all have access to the same information, which means now we can fact check the fact checkers. We can fact check the legacy media in real time now. And they don't know how to handle this because they're still living as if the big mass industrial age is the primary mechanism of social order. It's not anymore. It's networks. It's instantaneous, disestablished, decentralized digital information. That's why the independent content creator with Tucker Carlson being probably the king of them right now, the independent content creators, the future of it. It's not big conglomerate media corporations like Fox. They're losing They're losing viewers. CNN is losing viewers. MSNBC is losing viewers. All the major newspapers are losing readers because the independent content creator who has just as much access to the information as anybody in the media is seen as more trustworthy precisely because they're not under the pressures, the professional pressures of pushing that uniformity of message. Absolutely. And that Tucker Carlson network will be one that we are all watching intrigued at what comes out of that. But Steve, thank you so much for coming. I love just picking off some of those videos that you've touched on, on the meltdown on those different sectors. So thanks so much for coming along and sharing your thoughts on those. Oh, thank you, Peter. It's always an honour to be here. Many of your viewers may know I got my doctorate across the pond at Durham. And I always, always love visiting with my British brothers. So thank you, sir.

In this episode we tune in to the race between Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and Vice President George H. W. Bush. as they debate each other in a debate that saw Dukakis answer one of the hardest hitting questions ever asked in my memory of any candidate. His answer came off like a robot and with that the slide began that would lead to Bush's victory. We will join an August, 24, 1988 campaign rally in California that will feature George Bush's other ace in the hole, the then current President, Ronald Reagan. You will see a vintage Reagan as he delivers a speech in the effort to elect his Vice President to carry on the work he had begun over 8 great years as President. Finally you can relive the election of George H. W. Bush as we drop in on the coverage on election night 1988 when George Bush closes in on victory after climbing over a 17 point deficit with the voters and eventually defeats Michael Dukakis to become the nation's 41st President.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

In this week's episode, NewDEAL CEO Debbie Cox Bultan speaks with Matt Bennett, the co-founder and Executive Vice President of Public Affairs at Third Way, a center-left think tank in Washington D.C. and a great partner of the NewDEAL. They talk about what we should take from last Tuesday's election results in states like Kentucky and Virginia, the recent New York Times polling on the 2024 presidential race, and the threat that third-party presidential candidates -- particularly via No Labels' efforts -- pose to our democracy. They also talk about Matt's path into public service, his involvement in an iconic political moment, and Third Way's efforts to champion winning ideas and uplift the center-left. Tune in to hear Matt's tips on what we should do as we head into 2024. [01:10] Introducing Matt Bennett and his work at Third Way.  [02:35] The historic tendency for the public to vote democratic when the stakes are at their highest.  [03:38] Political context for this conversation including the week of the New York Times poll. [04:24] Understanding that we are at the referendum stage of politics.  [05:25] The tendency for voters to use polls to complain.   [06:22] An overview of the No Labels decision to put forward a third-party representative.  [10:26] What it means to be a ‘dark money' group and how No Labels occupies this space.  [13:17] Why No Labels has added gold to the Electoral Map.  [17:55] Predictions on who the candidate might be and why it won't be Joe Manchin. [20:38] A timeline for the announcement of this candidate: 2024 at the latest.  [26:00] The possibility that Trump will no longer be a nominee.   [28:11] Matt's journey to working in politics today.  [30:40] Dukakis in a Tank and Matt's involvement in the activation.   [33:06] Third Way and its work in problem-solving politics.   [35:47] Advice for the politically active as we move into a new year.   

TRANSCRIPT  http://peternavarro.substack.com The Republican Party must immediately unite around Donald J. Trump as its presidential candidate.  Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel must voluntarily pass the torch of leadership to a new RNC Chair capable of running a competent campaign in 2024.  Absent these two mid-course corrections, the Republican Party will squander a platinum opportunity to take back both the White House and Congress from a Democrat Party destroying everything Main Street America holds dear. Trump has an insurmountable lead in the polls and a rock-solid base no other candidate can shake.  He WILL be the nominee. As we saw last week, there is no one left on the debate stage either capable of being president or likely to be Trump's VP choice.  The Pillsbury Doughboy of Venom Chris Christie has self-immolated as spoiler hit man.  Loudmouth Ramaswamy is, at best, a Deputy Cabinet appointee.  As for Nikki Haley, yond lean and hungry Cassius has bitten the Trump hand that fed her so many times that she will have NO place in a Trump administration (other than perhaps as ambassador to Botswana).  Ron DeSanctimonious blew his VP chance not just when he swung for Trump's head.  Shrinking Ron has little national appeal to justify a place on the Trump ticket. What, then, is the purpose of continuing with a contested primary season that serves only to drain political funds from the General Election?  Why have a debate schedule that allows the Keebler Elf candidates to throw mud at Trump as they make fools of themselves?  In fact, we saw a similar movie and mud fest in 2020 with all of the usual suspects now hanging around the 2024 fringes.  These Never-Trumpers range from the Koch network's dark money and Rupert Murdoch's propagandist Fox to the Romney-McConnell-Ryan-Noonan RINO sappers and nasty PAC men like George Conway and John Bolton.  In 2020, their dark money and negative ads and attacks most certainly shaved points off the final Trump tally in what was a highly contested race.   And let's not forget the 2020 fragging of Trump from the likes of endless warmongers like George W. Bush, Mad Dog Mattis, and the late Colin Powell, and the passive-aggressive shots at Trump by Mitch McConnell in a Senate that has become nothing short of a Uniparty RINO embarrassment.  As splintered as the Democrat Party is supposed to be, their leaders and big donors wouldn't be doing anything like what the Republican Party is doing.  Now, it's either “here we go again” and the Republican Party hands over an eminently winnable election to the Democrat Party of economic mayhem, open borders, and foreign policy chaos.  Alternatively, it can unite around “The Donald” as the only clear path to victory in 2024. Even if Trump quickly becomes the presumptive nominee, there still is the matter of a Republican National Committee.  As last week's election once again demonstrated, the RNC fat cats know far better how to hold plush fundraisers at posh resorts than win down and dirty elections against a brass-knuckled, grassroots Democrat Party willing to lie, cheat, and lawfare its way to victory. Here's several obvious post-election takeaways.  First, the RNC must develop a far better ground game behind them.  It's not just about getting folks to vote early.  It's also about getting more folks to the polls.  Second, if the RNC allows the Democrat Party to turn the 2024 presidential and congressional races into a referendum on social issues, particularly abortion, Republicans will lose in RECORD numbers.  Just how many times do Republican strategists and leadership have to make this same stupid mistake?  Obama did social issued the feckless Mitt Romney in 2008 when Romney was all but a lock to win on economic issues and Communist China raid on our factories.  Obama did it again to the clueless and ever-cranky, now dear departed John McCain in 2012.  And what about that 2022 Republican tsunami that was supposed to result in a record House victory?  It never materialized for all manner of RNC-induced reasons, not the least of which was a failure to properly message on the abortion issue. Dukakis had it right with his Greek proverb that the fish rots from the head down.  The RNC is a rotten political machine sputtering on every single cylinder, and its head, Ronna McDaniel, must hold her own self accountable for last week's carnage.  So, Ronna, end the debates, endorse Trump, and then step aside so we can, in the words of the immortal Al Davis, “win, baby, win.”  I'm Peter Navarro, and thanks for listening.  Be sure and check out my substatck at peternavarro.substack. com  That's peternavarro.substack.com.  And it will help me get the word out if you write up a review of this podcast.  I'd love to know what you think. Peter Navarro, Out.

The year is 1988 and the choice is stark: a patrician Vice-President from a prominent New England family or a first-generation Greek-American who became Governor of Massachusetts. 1988 is remembered for its dirty campaign tricks, and for being the last presidential election of the Cold War. Today we look at the man at the receiving end of so much of the dirt and abuse: Michael Dukakis. Robert Fleegler from the University of Mississippi is our guest expert. 

The penultimate episode finds us hosting the homie 60 East who joins us in the beginning to talk about his new project with AFRO. Then, we get into the Friendly Game Of Drum Pads, and tally it up, and announce the 2 finalists! Cook kills it with his Who Wore It Best, and we discuss a rap group most thought was a joke way back in the day, but...are they? Press Play & Enjoy!

I used to be a true blue loyalist. My grandmother, an FDR Democrat, and lifelong social worker, kept a signed picture of Bill Clinton on her kitchen wall until the day she died. My earliest memory kicks it all the way back to 1988 when I wore a Dukakis button to work and was mocked for it. “Who would vote for du-Taxus,” one woman said. Get full access to Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone at sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

The taglines are “The funniest movie ever to make you cry” and “Sometimes laughter is a matter of life and death” and boy does this movie cash in on those promises. Patrick goes into this episode pretty skeptical but if you ever wanted to hear Patrick and Lolo cry this is the episode for you. Listen now to hear what Patrick thinks this movie will be and then listen as Lolo and him break down why this film is so impactful, the circumstances around the writing of the script, and tons more trivia. New episodes of First Timers Movie Club come out every other Friday so click SUBSCRIBE and rate us five stars to make sure you don't miss our next episode! Watch ALMOST SORTA MAYBE now on Tubi, Amazon Prime, WatchFreeFlix, Comcast and Spectrum on Demand. Become a Patron today for access to exclusive episodes and videos, including two of our newest sketches currently posted nowhere else: TWAT SLAP an VEGAN APOCALYPSE https://www.patreon.com/ixfilmproductions Have a favorite (or least favorite) famous movie that you think we should've seen? Reach out to IX Film Productions on Twitter, Instagram or email and we'll add it to our list!Our upcoming Events and Screenings mentioned in this episode:See Vegan Apocalypse at the Free State Film Festival on Saturday, July 1st at 5pm – tickets available soon: https://freestatefestival.org/ Follow the Bird Watching Film Festival to stay up to date on upcoming screenings: https://www.facebook.com/birdwatchingfilmfest https://www.instagram.com/birdwatchingfilmfest/ Follow IX Film Productions for podcast updates, original web shorts, behind the scenes sneak peeks and comedy feature films at:Facebook: www.facebook.com/ixfilmproductionsInstagram: @IXProductionsYouTube: www.youtube.com/ixfpSubscribe to our newsletter for monthly updates on our website: www.ixfilmproductions.com"First Timers Movie Club" is brought to you by IX Film Productions."Making the World a Funnier Place one Film at a Time"MusicThe Curtain Rises by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5007-the-curtain-risesLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

CLR Show 1806. Air Date March 24, 2023. Republicans are playing the worst of losing presidential hands, yet feel compelled to pretend they are not––for the sake of the base. Donald will continue to implode as the indictments and convictions add up and the culture wars issues will appear all the more meaningless. Trump and DeSantis are setting republicans up for a loss of Dukakis proportions. With Friday Co-Host, David Bach.

So sultry, so smoky, yet so PG. Sublimity! The Post Sunday Blues: A Preaching Postmortem is where you can go backstage with Liberti Church Collingswood's sermons! Email us your thoughts via postsundayblues@gmail.com.

How can Democrats improve their messaging in the run-up to 2024? We're joined by Congressman Eric Swalwell to discuss. Plus, we speak with Democratic Senator Peter Welch about the letter he just handed to President Biden about reining in Israel's far-right government.

I'm Alex Snitker and I have diabetes, Adrian learns his subconscious economic indicator, government panel recommends disarming the US military to save lives, getting high as a zombie, AZ violates Constitution to enforce socialist patriotism, BootieGig channels Dukakis, Gen Z ain't gettin any, and Biden whips out a brass pair.

Mayor Pete has his Career Ending Dukakis Moment Thank you to our Top Patreon Supporters! Andrew and Connie, Cristine, ETW, Chuck, Dee, Pamela, Rick, Nick, Wesley, Macho, Rome Wisconsin, Mike P., Paulette, Carlos, Maria. Support the show and become a Patreon Supporter! https://www.patreon.com/realbriancraigshow https://briancraigshow.com/ https://www.optimusforce.in/

Front Row Classics kicks off 2023 with a conversation featuring three-time Oscar nominated actress, Diane Ladd. Brandon recently sat down with Diane to discuss her latest film, Isle of Hope, directed by Damian Romay. This touching film is a testament to the power of family and working through your past to define your present and future. Ladd shares her thoughts on the film's hopeful message and why it deserves attention during this awards season. Brandon and Diane also spend time discussing her southern upbringing and relationship with daughter, Laura Dern. We also spend time with remembrances of such classics in her filmography as Rambling Rose, Chinatown and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore.   Legendary actress Diane Ladd is a Golden Globe (Alice), BAFTA (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore) and Independent Spirit Awards (Rambling Rose) winning actress who has been nominated for over 70 awards during her astonishing 7 decadelong career including three times for both an Academy Award and Golden Globe for Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Wild at Heart and Rambling Rose for which she and her daughter actress Laura Dern made Academy history as the only mother and daughter to be nominated in the same year for the same film. Ladd is currently starring in Isle of Hope, a new feature film that opened December 9, 2022. Ladd stars as well-known actress Carmen Crawford whose daughter Victoria (Mary Stuart Masterson) blames for having crushed her dreams of becoming a playwright. But when Carmen suffers a life-threatening stroke and wakes up thinking she's living 15 years in the past, Victoria is given a unique opportunity to figure out where her life went off track and reconcile her relationship with her mother. Andrew McCarthy, Sam Robards, and Jessica Lynn Wallace co-star. Isle of Hope, written and directed by Damian Romay and produced by Omar Romay. Ladd has several films currently streaming, coincidentally all based on true events: Gigi & Nate, director Nick Hamm's coming-of-age drama based on Ned Sullivan and his capuchin support monkey Kasey, Charming the Hearts of Men starring Kelsey Grammer, Anna Friel and Sean Astin, inspired by events during the Civil rights movement in 1964 and The Last Full Measure, a true story about a young soldier's exceptional bravery and sacrifice, starring alongside Christopher Plummer, William Hurt, Samuel L. Jackson, Ed Harris. Ladd has appeared in over 200 films and television projects including director David O. Russell's Joy, director Roman Polanski's iconic Chinatown, writer John Hughes' Christmas Vacation and, The Cemetary Club with Olympia Dukakis, Ellen Burstyn & Danny Aiello which led her to produce her first film Mother in which she and Dukakis co-starred. For the small screen Ladd most recently appeared as Nell O'Brien in Hallmark's runaway hit Chesapeake Shores. Her varied television shows included her Golden Globe winning performance as Belle the singing, songwriting, waitress of the run-away hit series Alice based on her Oscar and Golden Globe winning role in the film Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Ladd also appeared in Steven King's Kingdom Hospital and co-starred in the popular HBO series Enlightened with daughter Laura Dern. And if acting isn't enough, Ladd has co-authored a new book with daughter actress Laura Dern, titled Honey Baby Mine which hits shelves Mother's Day, May 2023 by Grand Central Publishing. 2 Ladd has authored two other books: Spiraling Through the School of Life, published by Hay House, and a book of short stories, A Bad Afternoon for a Piece of Cake, published by Ladd's company Exxcel Press. Ladd began her career as a teenager in actor John Carradine's production of “Tobacco Road”, lying about her young age she next landed a stint as a dancer at the world renowned “Copacabana.” Next, she was cast in the Off-Broadway play “Orpheus Descending” co-starring with her soon-to-be husband Bruce Dern. She went on to again star opposite Dern in her first role for the big-screen in Roger Corman's The Wild Angels also starring Peter Fonda. She next starred in The Rebel Rousers, starring Jack Nicholson, Cameron Mitchell and again with Dern. She then wrote and directed the critically acclaimed Mrs. Munck, co-starring with Bruce Dern. Ladd has been a lifetime member of both the Actors Studio East & West Coast and a National Board Member of SAG/AFTRA both for over 25 years. She has a degree in Esoteric Psychology and a Certificate of Nutrition from Florida University as well as a Ministerial Ordination Degree. Ladd has worked alongside doctors for over 20 years as an “Intuitive Healer” and was chosen to give a Congressional Testimony regarding the Value of “Alternative Modalities”. She has served on the Board of Advisors for the AHMA (Alternative Holistic Medical Association) and served on the Board of Directors for Congressman Berkley Bedell's “National Foundation for Alternative Medicine” (NFAM). Ladd founded “The Art and Culture Taskforce“ a 501-C3 non-profit Foundation (artandculturetaskforce.org)

CLR Show 1783. Air Date December 16, 2022. Donald's capacity for grifting and deception is endless, witness 'Trump Digital Trading Cards' at $99 a pop, each listed as a Non-Fungible Token and infinitely 'collectable and trade-able.'  It's all leading up to a carbon copy repeat of the 2016 republican primaries. Trump the bloviating clown will shout all other comers off the stage and secure the nomination––but then lose in Dukakis-like style in the general.  What will the remnants of the mindless base be instructed to do?  What if Donald has already been indicted, tried and convicted before then?  (That's why they play the games!)  With Friday Co-Host, David Bach.

On October 13, 1988, George Bush and Michael Dukakis meet in debate. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On the day of Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, we reflect on her visit to Boston nearly fifty years ago. Former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis was serving his first term at the time, and he shares his memories from that day, including a moment of true levity. 

We react to news of Queen Elizabeth's passing at the age of 96.  Topics: Is the monarchy evil?; Charles The Third; The Obamas; CNN's Bernard Shaw; Liz Truss Guests With Time Stamps 00:01:54 David remembers The Queen 00:08:14 Prime Minister Liz Truss is a horrible, horrible human being 00:22:05 The Obamas return to the White House 00:35:22 Bernard Shaw passes away, his question to Dukakis 00:37:32 Technical difficulties 00:41:03 David takes calls from Britain, Ireland and Australia about The Queen 01:42:32 Professor Ben Burgis discusses The Queen and John Fetterman's position on Israel 02:08:16 Dr. Philip Herschenfeld and Ethan Herschenfeld 02:36:56 Emil Guillermo, host of The PETA Podcast 03:08:19 The Rev. Barry W. Lynn 04:16:12 The Professors and Mary Anne: Professors Bick, Li, Cummings and Husain...Plus Joe In Norway cooks for us from France 05:20:47 Dave In PA finishes his wooden glass 05:22:04 Professor Harvey J. Kaye and Alan Minsky 05:56:43 David does more news We livestream here on YouTube every Monday and Thursday starting at 5:00 PM Eastern and go until 11:00 PM. Please join us!  Take us wherever you go by subscribing to this show as a podcast! Here's how: https://davidfeldmanshow.com/how-to-l... And Subscribe to this channel. SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA: https://www.paypal.com/biz/fund?id=PD... More David @ http://www.DavidFeldmanShow.com Get Social With David: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidfeldmanc... Twitter: https://twitter.com/David_Feldman_ iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/d...

Actor and Director, Apollo Dukakis, is a member and longtime resident artist of the Pasadena, CA based theater company, A Noise Within.  As a professional actor for over fifty years, Apollo has worked off-Broadway and in many prestigious regional theatres across the country, including: The American Conservatory Theatre of San Francisco, The Pasadena Playhouse, The Mark Taper Forum, The Actors' Theater of Louisville, The Trinity Repertory Theater of Rhode Island, and many others. Along with his sister, the late Olympia Dukakis, he co-founded the Tony nominated Whole Theatre Company of Montclair, New Jersey, where he was Associate Artistic Director, actor, director, and teacher for fifteen years. In Los Angeles, Apollo was a company member of the acclaimed Antaeus Theatre Company. He's the recipient of the Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle Award, the Dramalogue Critics Award, and the Ovation Award. His film work includes: American Heart with Jeff Bridges and The Last Action Hero with Arnold Schwarzenegger. TV appearances include: Seinfeld, ER, Beauty and the Beast, Doogie Howser, L.A. Law,  and many others. Apollo recently won the Best Actor In a Short Film Award from the London Greek Film Festival for the film Mr. Segur.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis once worked closely with former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe through the Boston Global Forum. Dukakis joins us to talk about the recently assassinated world leader and his connections to Boston.

In this thrilling iteration of Presidential War, we discuss the most insane question in presidential debate history and make some interesting comparisons: the electoral performances of James Buchanan vs. William Howard Taft; the pre-presidential accomplishments of Teddy Roosevelt vs. Lyndon Johnson; and the First Lady accomplishments of Dolley Madison vs. Michelle Obama. Also: Who was the better politician—Martin Van Buren or Abraham Lincoln? Who was the better statesman—FDR or Ronald Reagan? 

Jesse Ferguson is a top Democratic strategist and comms expert - who cut his teeth in Virginia, ran the $60M+ DCCC Independent Expenditure in 2014, served as a top press aide to the Clinton '16 campaign, and is now a strategist advising numerous organizations and independent expenditures. In this conversation, Jesse talks key moments and lessons from his career, as well as providing his Messaging 101 on how he thinks of effective political communications.IN THIS EPISODE…Jesse's family connection to Joe McCarthy and the 1950s Red Scare…Jesse's early Republican leanings and the high-profile Republican he almost interned for…Jesse's theory of Virginia as a trendsetter in American politics…Jesse talks the importance of Mark Warner in the rise of Virginia Democrats…In college, Jesse starts Virginia21 to encourage more investment in Virginia higher education…Jesse talks the value of getting experience outside of DC…Jesse navigates multiple cycles rising through the ranks at the DCCC…Lessons from his “favorite job” running the DCCC IE in 2014…Jesse talks his senior comms role in the Hillary Clinton 2016 race…The 3 challenges the Hillary 2016 campaign had with the press…Jesse shares insights from health struggles he's faced…Jesse provides his Messaging 101 on speaking on the record, outlandish stunts, getting earned media, and more…Jesse's go-to “ABCV” message trick…The three TV shows that form the backbone of Jesse's approach to life…AND…agents of intolerance, George Allen, Mark Bergman, Demand Justice, Dukakis bumper stickers, early warning signs, earworms, Brian Fallon, Jerry Falwell, flowing hair, fruit flies, Steve Israel, Steve Jarding, Tim Kaine, kazoos, Abraham Lincoln, Travis Lowe, Stewart Mills, Robby Mook, Rick Nolan, Ralph Northam, The Palm, Jen Palmieri, Ed Peavy, pneumonic devices, press releases on camera, Protect Our Care, Red Dawn, Mame Reiley, the Richmond Jewish community, Pat Robertson, robots, Rockefeller Republicans, Michael Scherer, screen agnosticism, sharp elbows, Star Wars, Tikkun olam, Joe Trippi, the Urban Crescent, Kelly Ward, William & Mary, & more!

“I think he's going to dig in,” Bannon said. “I think it's going to get worse for the administration. I don't think Fauci is going to leave easily.” Our guests are: Natalie Winters, Boris Epshteyn Stay ahead of the censors - Join us warroom.org/join Aired On: 06/08/2021 Watch: On the Web: http://www.warroom.org On Podcast: http://warroom.ctcin.bio On TV: PlutoTV Channel 240, Dish Channel 219, Roku, Apple TV, FireTV or on https://AmericasVoice.news. #news #politics #realnews