Even while trapped in Europe’s deadly summer sweatbox, two guilt-ridden New York Times reporters fretted about the modern-day life-saver of air-conditioning, issuing a snotty, dismissive story, “Europe’s Deadly Heat Wave: A Jolt for Climate Action, or Just for A.C.?”  Even the byline had a touch of heatstroke by Times standards: “Michael D. Shear reported from London. Jeanna Smialek from Brussels. Both places were very hot.” The story nudged the sweating Euro-populace to keep favoring hypothetical reductions in average global temperatures over decades, against the urgent deadly problem of the summer heat wave, misery exacerbated by Europe's stubborn refusal to embrace the modern-era of air conditioning (perhaps not wanting to be like those soft spoiled energy-wasting Americans). Of course, left-wing European politicians ideologically opposed to air conditioning don’t have to swelter like the commoners several floors below them. Shear likely came up with the opening dig at Britain’s conservative leader. It was a crisp 54 degrees in Aberdeen, on the northeast coast of Scotland, last week when Kemi Badenoch, the leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, once again championed the country’s fossil fuel industry. .... Eight days later, thermostats across southern England and Wales recorded soaring heat, with temperatures in London nearing 100 degrees. Schools closed, trains were canceled or delayed and some hospitals halted elective procedures…. For politicians like Ms. Badenoch, whose party won a special election in Aberdeen, the increasingly intense heat presents a challenge. How do they reconcile their support for faster extraction and use of polluting energy sources that contribute to the warming of the planet, with the reality of a planet that already feels like it’s burning up? Meanwhile, Europeans are suffering and dying now. A spokesman for Ms. Badenoch, who has called herself a “net zero skeptic,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in an interview this week with the right wing broadcaster GB News, Ms. Badenoch said that while it was “important that we do what we can to tackle climate change,” the country’s climate approaches are not “actually sorting anything out. All they have done is send jobs and emissions to other countries.” Shear and Smialek blew more hot air, as if the desire to live at a bearable temperature was a right-wing plot. Increasingly, the answer from right-wing politicians is to focus on a short-term fix that almost everyone agrees is necessary — the installation of air-conditioning units in European homes, schools, public buildings and hospitals. During intense heat waves, calling for improvement of the sometimes crumbling infrastructure of aging European cities can be an effective way of drawing attention to that problem without saying much about the longer-term, underlying cause: rising greenhouse gas emissions. In France, far-right politicians who have advocated cutting net zero initiatives hope to gain from the heat wave, using it to accuse the government of failing to make the country more resilient, but also as a cultural issue against the hard left, which has often opposed the use of air-conditioning on environmental grounds. The article had one cool blast of common sense: In the Belgian city of Ghent, which is run mostly by left-of-center politicians, the municipal website this week discouraged citizens from using air-conditioners, saying that “the best air-conditioner is a tree” and advising they use fans and request a free tree to plant outside their houses. Maurits Vande Reyde, a right-wing member of the Flemish Parliament, responded to Ghent’s recommendations on social media. “It is absurd that all governments in our country, under pressure from left-green mumbo-jumbo, advise against the use of air-conditioning,” he wrote on Tuesday. “The most efficient and best solution. How many deaths would the government already have on its conscience with this kind of absurd advice?” This was intended to be the cherry-on-top conclusion: In London this week, environmentalists were hoping that the intense weather would underscore their arguments. “There is irony in the fact that a London Climate Action Week event had to be canceled due to extreme heat in a temperate, wealthy country,” said Chris Anderson, head of climate risk and resilience at Practical Action, an environmental group. Snowstorms have canceled global warming conferences in the past, to conservative amusement -- but the Times doesn't use those opportunities to take shots at environmental hysterics.

Nicolle Wallace may be popular among MS NOW viewers, and that might be because she says remarkably untrue things that please the so-called progressives. On Friday’s Deadline: White House, as she boasted about how Barack Obama is still waaayy more popular than President Trump, she uncorked several whoppers, like Trump has “literally muzzled” half the media. How on Earth do you say a network like CBS has been "literally" silenced by Trump? Nicolle Wallace lies to please her MS NOW audience. How on Earth do you claim Trump's "LITERALLY muzzled" half the press? He muzzled CBS, and CNN? Wallace: Donald Trump has, as the Rev [Sharpton] was saying, not just all the trappings of the office, he's literally muzzled half… pic.twitter.com/Kutwuf8VrT — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 WALLACE: Donald Trump has, as the Rev was saying, not just all the trappings of the office, he's literally muzzled half of the media organizations. Um -- only approved deals to put them under his political donor and friend, the Ellison family. And President Obama is still twice as popular as he is. JONG-FAST: Yeah, because president Obama created Obamacare. I mean, remember before President Obama, people did not have health care. People “had no health care” until Obama came along, imagine that. The idea that even CBS under the Ellisons (they don’t control CNN yet), or any network that settled a lawsuit with Trump is “literally muzzled” is completely at odds with reality. Reckless Wallace also uncorked the old whopper that Obama had “no scandals” – twice.   Nicolle Wallace boosting Obama, "who had no scandals, who did not breed algae in any of our monuments, who did not attack our allies, who did not start wars, that he promised -- I mean, the comparisons go on and on. And I'm sure that's what drives Trump so nuts." This "no… pic.twitter.com/ixJX9TH1Un — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 JONG-FAST: You know, it's just to look back on someone who took it so seriously and whose word was their bond is it's really striking. WALLACE: Who had no scandals, who did not breed algae in any of our monuments, who did not attack our allies, who did not start wars, that he promised --  I mean, the comparisons go on and on. And I'm sure that's what drives Trump so nuts. Obama had “no scandals”? False. No algae in the Reflecting Pool? False. He never criticized our allies? False. No "wars" started? Try again, with military actions in seven countries. You can imagine these lies might drive Trump a little nuts. Earlier in the segment, Wallace claimed “absence of scandal,” sounding like CNN host Fareed Zakaria in 2016 boosting Obama's dignity and grace and his "largely scandal-free" administration.  Nicolle Wallace comes out of a video medley of Trump saying "Barack Hussein Obama," and claims Trump has an "unprecedented and deeply unhealthy obsession" with Obama, who unlike Trump, had "enduring likability and absence of scandal, or any crimes ever committed.” Somehow the… pic.twitter.com/3tLJ4lElYo — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 28, 2026 WALLACE: It’s been going on a decade since former President Obama left office, and he still lives completely rent-free inside Donald Trump's head. It's an unprecedented and deeply unhealthy obsession on Trump's part. It's the most public display of inferiority and insecurity about the superior job that president Obama did, and the real, serious presidential focus and dedication and high job approval rating numbers, and enduring likability and absence of scandal, or any crimes ever committed.” Feel free to giggle at the idea that Nicolle Wallace or Team MSNBC ever stopped having a “deeply unhealthy obsession” with Trump, certainly after he left the White House in 2021. But this "no Obama scandals" line was routine on MS NOW around the Obama Presidential Center opening. -- MS NOW contributor Claire McCaskill, June 18 Deadline White House: “There was no scandal. There was no lying. There was no grab for money.” -- Michelle Norris on All In, June 19: “no scandals, no unforced errors.” -- Sen. Dick Durbin on The Beat with Ari Melber, June 24: “I remembered a president we respected, a president who had no scandals in his administration of any major -- a president who really led this country, even though he was controversial to some.”

On Thursday's The Moment show, MS NOW host Katy Tur gloated over some MAGA members deciding to defect from the pro-Donald Trump movement as she had on reporter David Noriega to discuss a piece in which he depicted some Trump supporters as "cult-like" and in need of a support group to recover. Tur played up the notion that a substantial number of Trump supporters were switching sides as he she introduced the segment: Katy Tur Gloats Over 'Cult-Like' MAGA Members Defecting pic.twitter.com/mPQO97NO3S — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) June 27, 2026 What once seemed unbelievable is now starting to be believable. The MAGA faithful are leaving the movement. We've seen that happen in a number of high profile cases recently, and it's true for many of the president's hardcore supporters who are disillusioned and let down by what they say were empty promises and conspiracies. After playing a clip of a former Trump supporter explaining why he has been disappointed in the President, Tur brought aboard Noriega and introduced the word "cult" into the conversation: "Joining us, MS NOW reporter David Noriega. I want to show that billboard again: 'Thinking of Leaving the Movement?' It's almost like, 'Thinking of leaving this cult? We can help you.'" Before conceding that MAGA overall is not a cult, Noriega began: Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Look, when I found out that there existed a support group for people who were leaving MAGA, I was very skeptical because I've reported on cults before, and this group adopted a lot of cults language -- deradicalization language. He added: And MAGA is not, in fact, a cult. It is the prevailing political ideology of the United States, right? It's a -- it's a -- it's a political movement. And voting for Donald Trump does not mean that you belong to a cult. But what I learned from talking to these folks that you see on the screen right now, or what I was reminded of rather, is that there are corners of MAGA that are in fact, very cult like. The MS NOW reporter then introduced a clip of an ex-MAGA woman who claimed that Trump supporters want to stop women from voting: NORIEGA: So I want to play a little bit of the interview that I did with one of the people in that group. Her name is Stephania. She and her husband were very evangelical. They were part of a very tight knit church community, and that led her, led them as a couple down some dark internet rabbit holes. Listen to this. STEPHANIA MESSINA, LEAVING MAGA: I became heavily indoctrinated into tradwife culture. Household voting was something myself and my fellow tradwives in the church. We were all absolutely fine with household voting and that. NORIEGA: So, just to clarify, for people who don't know, household voting means a woman does not vote. MESSINA: So the Save Act, in essence, is to take that right away from women. Noriega then added:  So, just to clarify, the Save Act does not say disenfranchise women, but it does make it much harder for women who get married and change their names to vote. So some people in that movement actually do see it as a back door to -- to household voting, as they refer to it. As the two discussed misinformation believed by MAGA supporters, Tur jumped in to hint that the COVID lab leak theory is not credible in spite of all the reporting to the contrary. It took until near the end of the segment before it was revealed that the support group Noriega spoke with only has a few dozen members. Transcript follows: MS NOW's The Moment June 26, 2026 2:51 p.m. Eastern KATY TUR: What once seemed unbelievable is now starting to be believable. The MAGA faithful are leaving the movement. We've seen that happen in a number of high profile cases recently, and it's true for many of the president's hardcore supporters who are disillusioned and let down by what they say were empty promises and conspiracies. RICH LOGIS, LEAVING MAGA: You know, I had believed that when Trump ran that he would be somebody who would be different as an outsider, I -- I think that he was correct in pointing out a lot of the flaws of our political system. It just turned out, unfortunately, that he didn't try to solve those or remedy those ills, that he exacerbated them. TUR: Joining us, MS NOW reporter David Noriega. I want to show that billboard again: "Thinking of Leaving the Movement?" It's almost like, "Thinking of leaving this cult? We can help you." DAVID NORIEGA: Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Look, when I found out that there existed a support group for people who were leaving MAGA, I was very skeptical because I've reported on cults before, and this group adopted a lot of cults language -- deradicalization language. And MAGA is not, in fact, a cult. It is the prevailing political ideology of the United States, right? It's a -- it's a -- it's a political movement. And voting for Donald Trump does not mean that you belong to a cult. But what I learned from talking to these folks that you see on the screen right now, or what I was reminded of rather, is that there are corners of MAGA that are in fact, very cult like -- TUR: Yeah. NORIEGA: -- right? You know, everyone who voted for Donald Trump in the last election -- TUR: No, that's not what you're saying. NORIEGA: Exactly. And there are specifically online cultures -- subcultures that are closely aligned with MAGA that are, in fact, very cult like. So I want to play a little bit of the interview that I did with one of the people in that group. Her name is Stefania. She and her husband were very evangelical. They were part of a very tight knit church community, and that led her, led them as a couple down some dark internet rabbit holes. Listen to this. STEPHANIA MESSINA, LEAVING MAGA: I became heavily indoctrinated into tradwife culture. Household voting was something myself and my fellow tradwives in the church. We were all absolutely fine with household voting and that. NORIEGA: So, just to clarify, for people who don't know, household voting means a woman does not vote. MESSINA: So the Save Act, in essence, is to take that right away from women. NORIEGA: So, just to clarify, the Save Act does not say disenfranchise women, but it does make it much harder for women who get married and change their names to vote. So some people in that movement actually do see it as a back door to -- to household voting, as they refer to it. So this group exists to provide support for people who are extracting themselves -- not just deciding that they're going to vote for somebody different, but actually extracting themselves from these parts of the MAGA movement that are, in fact, very sort of totalizing in the way they dominate someone's worldview and someone's social and family life, right. And what they talk about is that leaving those groups can be as hard as leaving a cult. There are exit costs that involves, you know, jettisoning important personal relationships, relationships with people as close as your father or mother or your children or, you know, one degree further out, your church, your social community. And what the people who founded this group decided to do was say, "Well, look, okay, so MAGA is a community. Let's give these people a different community that they can turn to. TUR: Is it just a handful of people? Do you have numbers on there? NORIEGA: They told us that it's several dozen. You know, it's -- so that makes it a small group. But I think its significance is the resonance that it has with people. And what some of these folks that I met with told me is that they have realized that more people in their lives than they realized were kind of teetering on the edge in this way and needed something that they could perceive as an exit route, right? Especially because -- and this is another thing I talked to them about -- when you've been convinced for many years of a certain truth, and all of a sudden you're presented with a situation where you're questioning that truth -- and again, not just an opinion, not but -- but like a whole, a fully self-contained and coherent sort of truth -- TUR: Worldview. NORIEGA: -- worldview that tells you that the 2020 election was stolen, that COVID, you know, wasn't real, or at least that you, that, like -- I don't know exactly what they believe about COVID. I don't exactly remember. But -- TUR: It wasn't as dangerous as people said -- NORIEGA: Yeah. TUR: -- or it was manipulated in a lab or made by Fauci. NORIEGA: Exactly. And one thing that was interesting is that a lot of them had these moments of kind of questioning or even awakening when, for whatever reason, they were caused to diversify their media, right? So one of them was shown a PBS documentary on January 6th by her new husband, and she was like, "Hang on a second -- is this stuff true? Like, did this happen?" And they said, "Yes, in fact, it is true." And then you can sort of feel your world crumbling beneath you in that kind of situation, your identity. And that's what a group like this is for. TUR: And it's more possible now because there's so many information silos where you don't actually see what happened on January 6th. You're not privy to those images and the reporting because you -- you live in a very specific, very contained and very tightly controlled algorithm. David Noriega, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate the reporting as always.

On Saturday morning's The Weekend on MS NOW, co-hosts Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniels, and Jackie Alemany reacted with visible emotion — Capehart especially overcome — to Pete Buttigieg’s Substack post detailing an anonymous false report to Child Protective Services that temporarily upended his family. The incident was undeniably serious: An unidentified caller alleged Buttigieg confessed to “unspeakable violent crimes” during a supposed meeting in Alabama. Police and CPS responded. Buttigieg was separated from his four-year-old twins for 24 hours pending interviews.  Authorities quickly found the claims unsubstantiated, with the officer reportedly deeming the call politically motivated. Buttigieg noted he has never been to the town in question. Capehart introduced the segment with visible distress: “This story is enraging on so many levels. As Secretary Buttigieg pointed out, this is Pride Month, LGBTQ Pride Month... I think leaders should step out there and say that as Secretary Pete points out in his piece, in politics, children are supposed to be sacrosanct. You’re supposed to leave them alone. These are four-year-olds, four-year-olds!” Daniels piled on with a racial angle, suggesting the police officer might have traumatized the children: “And I think something that’s not lost on me is that they are four-year-old little black kids. And so their first, probably, interaction with men in blue suits and jackets and with guns on their hips coming in, talking to them and interviewing them is based on a lie that they will find out about as they get older.” MS NOW's The Weekend's Emotional Overreach on Buttigieg CPS Incident pic.twitter.com/Ky6aRQUobS — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 27, 2026 In fact, as Buttigieg noted: "The kids bounded into the house, looking curiously at the two guests. They were courteous and professional, inviting the kids to inspect the officer’s police car, which fascinated them of course, while the grownups talked in the driveway." Moreover, as the children of a former presidential candidate and cabinet secretary, it's unlikely this was their first exposure to law enforcement officers. Swatting-style hoaxes and false reports have plagued public figures across the spectrum, with conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nikki Haley, and numerous Republican lawmakers and conservative media members targeted in recent years. That hasn't drawn much outrage on MS NOW before.  But this is one of theirs. Daniels added that attacks on the “queer community and public out people are coming fast and furious.” Alemany attacking "the homophobia of it all" and described the separation as “really absolutely terrifying” and discussed the risks of publicizing children on social media. Capehart closed by noting the timing near Chasten Buttigieg’s birthday: “So can you imagine just the terror that that family went through, and also on a day when they should be celebrating.” No one disputes the human toll on the Buttigieg family. Weaponizing CPS against anyone’s children is contemptible, full stop. Yet the segment rushed to frame the hoax as part of a broader right-wing assault during Pride Month, while Buttigieg himself stated plainly: “I don’t know who did this, or exactly what prompted them to try.”  The Weekend’s emotional outpouring and assumptions about the perpetrator’s politics, paired with limited acknowledgment of the broader context, constituted classic selective framing. The family’s ordeal deserves condemnation regardless of who made the call — not partisan point-scoring before the facts are fully known. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 6/27/26 7:29 am EDT EUGENE DANIELS: Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says he and his family were targeted in a "cruel, politically-motivated hoax." This was after an anonymous caller made what police characterize as a false report to Child Protective Services. According to Buttigieg, the caller said he spoke to a woman who claimed she met him several years ago at a conference in Alabama, where she alleged Buttigieg told her he committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed his children were still at risk. Due to this claim, he wasn't allowed to be alone with his children until the interviews were conducted, which he calls the darkest hours of his life. The CPS worker assigned to the case and the police officer who interviewed him and his children separately didn't find anything to substantiate the allegation. Buttigieg wrote, he also says, he's never ever been to the town where the woman claims she met him, and said it's not lost on him that this happened during Pride Month. In a piece he wrote for Substack, Buttigieg says, quote, "To be clear, making a false report of this kind is a crime. I don't know how much we can do about it, but so help me God, if there is any way to press civil or criminal charges over this, we will. Not just for our sakes, but to draw a line that I thought everyone already recognized: do not mess with someone's kids." JONATHAN CAPEHART: This story is enraging on so many levels. As Secretary Buttigieg pointed out, this is Pride Month, LGBTQ Pride Month, where, you know, gosh!, 11 years ago yesterday was the Obergefell decision, where marriage equality was made the law of the land. Where couples like us, Eugene, we felt like we had a modicum, we had more security in this country for us and our families. And now in the moment that we're in, our families don't feel very secure in general, given what's happening in the country writ large, but in individual states, and now you have this happening. I mean, swatting and things like this are just egregious, but for a prominent, out, gay couple—with four-year-old children!—going through something like this, it is outrageous, and it is something that people really need to take seriously. I think leaders should step out there and say that as Secretary Pete points out in his piece, in politics, children are supposed to be sacrosanct. You're supposed to leave them alone. These are four-year-olds, four-year-olds! DANIELS: And I think something that's not lost on me is that they are four-year-old little black kids. CAPEHART: Yeah. DANIELS: And so their first, probably, interaction with men in blue suits and jackets and with guns on their hips coming in, talking to them and interviewing them is based on a lie that they will find out about as they get older. And I think what we continue to see in this country is the attacks on queer community and public out people are coming fast and furious in different ways. Like it used to be like one way, like you'd get attacked online and that just, that'd be it. But something like this is really ugly and concerning about what it portends for someone like him who's gonna continue running for office. CAPEHART: And Jackie, you're the only one here who has a child. I mean, when you read it, what Secretary Pete wrote, how did you feel? JACKIE ALEMANY: I can't imagine being separated from the most important thing in your life for 24 hours. It's really absolutely terrifying. I think outside of the homophobia of this all and the attacks that gay people in this country, queer people in this country, now have to deal with every single day. There's also, I think, another conversation that my husband and I have had a lot, talked a lot about, about publicizing your children on social media too. And this is why people don't wanna get into public life anymore as well. Putting yourself out there, you're an example for so many people, you're an inspiration for so many people. At the same time you are a target as well, and it's terrifying, and I think it scares good people from doing these kinds of jobs and being vulnerable with each other, and it's really a shame. CAPEHART: You know, one other point, as I was reading Secretary Pete's Substack, the thing that jumped into my head, you know what else was this week? And I don't know the timing of all this, it was Chasten's birthday, Secretary Pete's husband. So can you imagine just the terror that that family went through, and also on a day when they should be celebrating. So, you know, depending on the timing of all this. I just -- uh!

The Friday night News Hour pundit panel concluded on a historic PBS topic: Watergate. In its earliest years, PBS found it delightful to contribute to President Nixon's political demise, running the Watergate hearings live during the day and repeating them at night. PBS anchor Jim Lehrer was elated: "as justice, it was pure delicious!" Vice President Vance this week claimed Nixon is undergoing a historical "renaissance" and "if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy."  That's not entirely true. The Democrats tried to repeat this impeach-or-resign move with "independent counsels" with  Reagan over Iran-Contra, and with Trump and Russian "collusion" in his first term. It's never a "12-hour news story" with a leftist media that delights in ruining Republican reputations for all time. Nevertheless, Capehart expressed a typical disgust:  J.D. Vance said this week Nixon was undergoing a historical "renaissance" and today Watergate would be a "12-hour news story." Nah. But it upset Capehart and Brooks on PBS @NewsHour, who said at least Nixon had a "sense of shame," unlike Trump. In its early years, PBS LOVED… pic.twitter.com/zEUUAcrrX4 — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 27, 2026 CAPEHART: Nixon did not fall because of the deep state, which is what he said in another part of that answer. His presidency fell because he had the one thing that Donald Trump has never had, and that's a sense of shame. When fellow Republicans went to President Nixon and said, because of all the stuff you did, bugging the DNC and all these criminal acts, we are going to impeach you, and rather than President Nixon suffering the shame of being at the time what would have been the first president impeached in a very long time, he decided to resign. That's not what we're dealing with here with President Trump. And certainly Vice President Vance wrapping his arms around Nixon is a very curious thing to do. Brooks wanted to underline how successful the prosecutors were in getting convictions, but that was then, apparently:  BROOKS: More than a dozen people went to jail. It was a criminal enterprise. But having said that, J.D. Vance is absolutely right. It would be a one-day story today, because you define deviancy down. The standards of the entire country have been deteriorating because of what we have had lived through over the last decade. And for that reason, the Republicans would not do what Republicans did in 1974, which was to tell him you got to go. And so it would -- he is right. It would be an absolute one-day story, and we would all move on. [Laughter] Earlier, Brooks did effectively identify what's going on with the Democratic Socialist faction (in an academic way, without objecting to it):  On PBS, David Brooks effectively identified what's going on with the Democratic Socialist wing of the Democrats (in an academic way, without objecting to it): the party's energy has shifted from the unions to the universities. pic.twitter.com/HHPJBAgK8J — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 27, 2026 BROOKS: Yes, I think there's somewhat of a realignment going on. The Democratic Party's heart and soul used to be the labor movement. It used to be the unions. It's not anymore. The heart and soul of the Democratic Party is the universities and especially the elite universities. And so the candidate who won in New York 13, Darializa Avila Chevalier, went to Columbia, was an activist in the Gaza protests. She is a sociology Ph.D., or I think she's trying to get her Ph.D. And she grows out of that place. And if you look at all the candidates that -- the DSA candidates, where they did well, they did very well in the more affluent, the whiter and the better educated parts of New York City. And the traditional candidates did well in the poorer and more multiracial parts of New York City. And so the faculty lounge has become a strong part of the Democratic Party and faculty lounge politics have become a strong part of the Democratic Party. And that I think extends somewhat beyond New York City. You have Democratic socialist candidates in Washington, D.C., mayoral race, around the country. You have other DSA candidates. I don't think it's going to totally realign the party. There just aren't that many people with sociology doctorates and people who respond to this faculty lounge politics. But there are enough. And I think one of the things that will shift within the Democratic Party as a whole is I think Israel will become a flash point for whoever wants to be the nominee in 2028. I think the Democratic Party is really shifting strongly on that one, I think on some of the economic issues. Where I'm curious to see, if we go back to no fund of police. Avila Chevalier is a prison abolitionist, and she's been asked repeatedly, do you think murderers should serve time in jail? And she refuses to answer that question. Democrats did very poorly a couple of years ago because of the defund the police. That just seemed out of touch to a lot of people, including a lot of Democrats. And will the party make that mistake again because the -- where the energy is in the party is in the DSA wing? But hope for the long-term elections is the traditional parts of the party somehow getting some mojo and some energy to match what they're up against. Capehart, like his fellow MS NOW hosts, tried to claim this DSA thing might be a New York City phenomenon, not a national trend. But it's happened in deep-blue cities all over.