The Supreme Court released a blockbuster ruling in Louisiana v. Callis that struck down one of the Bayou State’s two majority-black congressional districts, possibly paving the way for more such districts to fall across the south. Of course, the liberal, elite media were enraged by the decision that they believe was done by the six-justice majority to prevent black Americans from participating in our constitutional republic by voting or assuming office, ending our “multiracial democracy” in favor of the “pre-Reconstruction era.” On CNN, chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic was apoplectic, asserting the six Republican-appointed justices helped Trump in “diminishing the ability to vote and go to the polls.” She also floated a conspiracy theory that the justices handed down this ruling as some sort of favor or in coordination with Trump because they were at Tuesday night’s State Dinner for King Charles III: CNN’s chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic says the Supreme Court ruling about Louisiana’s majority-minority districts helps Trump in “diminishing the ability to vote and go to the polls” and floats a conspiracy this ruling came a day after the six majority justices were at… pic.twitter.com/rRq9KJUcGl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Biskupic hit another crescendo by arguing it’s not “far-fetched” or “hyperbole” to state the justices have ushered in the “diminish[ment]” of “black representation nationwide and essentially return us to the pre-Reconstruction era,” aka Jim Crow. CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic says it’s not “hyperbole” to say the six Supreme Court justices in the Louisiana case have chosen to diminish the ability for African-Americans to assume elected office... “I don’t think it’s far-fetched, only based on what states… pic.twitter.com/G2gSzKaYKe — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny invoked Civil Rights Movement figure and one of the left’s moral compasses, the late Democrat Congressman John Lewis (D-GA): CNN’s Jeff Zeleny laments what the late John Lewis would think of today’s Supreme Court ruling on majority-minority districts... “I’m thinking back right now to 13 years ago, when Congressman John Lewis was standing in his office watching as the first pillar of the Voting Rights… pic.twitter.com/vLWwQvHi1M — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Unsurprisingly, ABC was rather forlorn about this ruling. During a Special Report, correspondent Devin Dwyer bemoaned the “setback for the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was passed to guarantee equality in how we vote” and fight “systemic and historic racial discrimination” as if to suggest those things are returning to America. “So, a setback for minority voters in Louisiana,” Dwyer added. Liberal contributor James Sample similarly fretted the rule “almost completely constitutionalizes a color blindness principle to the point that even race-conscious remedies designed to remedy racial discrimination are unconstitutional.” ABC’s legal folks were in shambles when they broke in this morning for the Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana’s congressional districts... “[I]t’s a significant decision in a setback for the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was passed to guarantee equality in how we… pic.twitter.com/2Do9se7Fjf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce — perhaps the most-biased TV correspondent on the beat — joined CNN in suggesting a conspiracy was afoot between the President and conservative justices: WATCH: ABC’s Mary Bruce points out during a Special Report on SCOTUS striking down Louisiana’s congressional map with two Black Democrats that the ruling came “just the morning after the President had six conservative Supreme Court justices on the guest list here last night for… pic.twitter.com/i1Wky2quqs — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Bruce said later in the hour on ABC News Live that the decision was in line with President Trump’s “eager” efforts “put additional restrictions on voting writ large” and “undermine confidence in the voting system ahead of the midterms,” including by “calling for this legislation, requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.” ABC’s Mary Bruce says the SCOTUS decision on majority-minority districts is in line with President Trump’s “eager” efforts “put additional restrictions on voting writ large” and “undermine confidence in the voting system ahead of the midterms,” including by “calling for this… pic.twitter.com/7jHIf9W8VB — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Meanwhile, MS NOW had senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin lead off by complaining congressional lines could now “be drawn in a way that disperses the votes of African Americans in the state of Louisiana, such that their voices will not be heard in the way that we have traditionally understood the Voting Rights Act to support.” Next came two Resistance keyboard warriors. First, former Obama U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade bemoaned black voters would no longer be able to claim discrimination under a key plank of the Voting Rights Act while Leah Litman insisted the value of black voters will be diluted because “there’s racial polarization in voting, so race and party are inextricably linked” because, in this oversimplified world, black people are Democrats and white people are Republicans. On MS NOW immediately after the #SCOTUS opinion on Lousiana's congressional map, liberal podcaster and Resistance warrior Leah Litman insisted the value of black voters will now be diluted because “there’s racial polarization in voting, so race and party are inextricably linked”… pic.twitter.com/oBEPIQTFV0 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 She also declared the ruling in Louisiana v. Calais will mark end of America as “a multiracial democracy” with black voters now deemed less important and thus the former will “never” again be able to “elect the candidates of their choice” Far-left legal expert Leah Litman complains on MS NOW that the SCOTUS ruling on Louisiana will now undo America being “a multiracial democracy” pic.twitter.com/byhyI09bxz — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Litman doubled down moments later on this “candidates of their choice” fantasy: Moments later, Litman declared black voters will now have a “much harder” time being able “to actually select the candidates of their choice” without majority-minority House districts.... “So one expert on voting rights, professor Nick Stephanopoulos at Harvard Law School,… pic.twitter.com/07OyZTxkBx — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 In the next hour, host Ana Cabrera went back to Rubin, who touted Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent to insist this issue with congressional districts should be solved in Congress, not the Courts. Bookmark this for the next time these types argue the Court has a place to rule on every nook and cranny of our lives (click “expand”): CABRERA: And I want to read part of Justice Kagan’s dissent, in which she writes in part: “The Voting Rights Act was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe inspiring change, bringing this nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed. Not the members of this Court.” Lisa, what do you make of that argument that this change to the Voting Rights Act should be done by Congress, not the court? RUBIN: I think the justice has a very solid point there, because what is happening here is that the Court is technically upholding Section II of the Voting Rights Act, but changing the sort of the goalpost about what it means to show that the lines are drawn in a racially discriminatory manner. And Justice Kagan is saying we should not be the ones to change the meaning of this act. This was done by congress to remedy racial discrimination, not to prohibit the use of race, to sort of act as a remedial factor. And so those are decisions that belong to Congress. Congress should be doing its job. I should note, Ana, also that many of the justices who are in the majority of today’s decision have in other decisions this term essentially said the same thing, that Congress should be the one making those policy decisions, not the court. Over on CBS, the opposite took place with longtime legal correspondent Jan Crawford at the helm: While plenty of legal commentators were lighting their hair on fire this morning (and afternoon) over the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, CBS's Jan Crawford jumped on the CBS News Special Report mere minutes after it came down and did, well, the opposite. Just the… pic.twitter.com/4MvbTF5iiC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 29, 2026 Crawford also closed out the Special Report, emphasizing “the Court could have gone a lot further” and donw what “Louisiana and other states like Alabama were arguing that they should just basically strike down Section II of the Voting Rights Act.” “The Court is not doing that. They’re taking a kind of a more middle ground, but still nonetheless a very broad ruling that even as Justice Thomas says and his concurrence should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure in voting rights jurisprudence,’” she said. To see the relevant transcripts from April 29, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), here (for CNN), and here (for MS NOW).

Anchor Amna Nawaz’s introduction to Monday evening’s regular PBS News Hour political discussion confirmed conservative beliefs that the elitist mainstream press is unbendingly hostile to Donald Trump, even after the third attempt on the president’s life in less than two years. Amna Nawaz: We covered at the top of the show Saturday night's events. And I know, Tam, you were there as well. We saw President Trump in that press conference after the attack call for unity. The press secretary today started to talk about a call for unity, toning down the rhetoric, and then blamed a number of Democrats for their rhetoric and leading to the violence. I want to point out too the president had joked his speech that he was going to deliver at the dinner was going to go after the press very hard! I just want to get your reaction to all of this, especially someone who, as the former president of the White House Correspondents' Association, had to arrange this dinner. PBS News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz responding to the attempt on President Trump's life at the WHCD: "The press secretary today started to talk about a call for unity, toning down the rhetoric, and then blamed a number of Democrats for their rhetoric and leading to the violence." pic.twitter.com/7vV233qW4O — Clay Waters (@claywaters44) April 29, 2026 As usual, the elitist media considers it incredibly rude to "go after the press," while they refuse to consider the notion they they "go very hard" after the president. Nawaz herself opened the first night of the Republican convention in 2024 with "We have seen though, we should note, Republican rhetoric veer into outright racism, echoing some white supremacist notions as well. Do you think that will be avoided here tonight?" Regular Monday night panelist Tamara Keith of National Public Radio was compelled to get her own cracks in on the president 48 hours after he was targeted by a left-wing would-be assassin. Tamara Keith, NPR: I'm very grateful that this was not my year, because this has been so challenging. I went into the dinner Saturday night with a feeling of dread, but it was about -- it was a fear of what the president might say about the press, about the potential reputational damage for an organization that stands up for the First Amendment and a free press and a free and independent press to then have the president just tear into us, as he has done repeatedly through his presidency, punishing reporters for asking questions he doesn't like, news organizations for publishing stories he doesn't like, the lawsuits, all of this. So that was what I was afraid of. And we didn't ever get to that point because of this attempted act of political violence. And it was just a real-time reminder that this is a very real and present problem in the country right now. As if the White House Correspondent’s Dinner has never torn into Trump and members of his administration (see: Michelle Wolf). Keith does not have a record of "independent" reporting when it comes to Democrats, slobbering over Hillary Clinton and acting like a press secretary for Joe Biden. At least Keith brought up a previous instance of political violence targeting Republicans, albeit while leaving off the important partisan affiliations (Rep. Steve Scalise is a Republican who was shot by a Bernie Sanders’ supporter in 2017): Tamara Keith: What Amy's saying makes me think about one of the things that just isn't on my mind permanently, which is, as I was underneath the tables, as we all were, waiting to see if it was safe, and I looked up and I saw Majority Whip Steve Scalise being escorted out the center aisle of the room. And he walks with a little bit of a limp because he survived a politically motivated shooting in 2017 at the Congressional Baseball Game. And so that's just seared into my mind seeing him going through another scare. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 4/27/26 7:38:02 p.m. AMNA NAWAZ: To discuss the fallout from the White House Correspondents` Dinner shooting and another state`s push for mid-decade redistricting, we turn now to our Politics Monday duo. That is Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It`s great to see you both. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Hello. TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Good to be here. AMNA NAWAZ: We covered at the top of the show Saturday night`s events. And I know, Tam, you were there as well. We saw President Trump in that press conference after the attack call for unity. The press secretary today started to talk about a call for unity, toning down the rhetoric, and then blamed a number of Democrats for their rhetoric and leading to the violence. I want to point out too the president had joked his speech that he was going to deliver at the dinner was going to go after the press very hard. I just want to get your reaction to all of this, especially someone who, as the former president of the White House Correspondents` Association, had to arrange this dinner. TAMARA KEITH: Yes, not this one. AMNA NAWAZ: Yes. TAMARA KEITH: …. I went into the dinner Saturday night with a feeling of dread, but it was about -- it was a fear of what the president might say about the press, about the potential reputational damage for an organization that stands up for the First Amendment and a free press and a free and independent press to then have the president just tear into us, as he has done repeatedly through his presidency, punishing reporters for asking questions he doesn`t like, news organizations for publishing stories he doesn`t like, the lawsuits, all of this. So that was what I was afraid of. And we didn`t ever get to that point because of this attempted act of political violence. And it was just a real-time reminder that this is a very real and present problem in the country right now. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, what do you make this? AMY WALTER: Yes, it is -- to me, the most surprising thing was learning about this -- I was at a different event -- and not being surprised, right, that we now have become almost numb to the fact that it`s not simply that it`s political violence, as Tam points out. But you can`t go a day in this country without getting some sort of alert that there has been a mass shooting or an attempt at a shooting in a public place, at a school. The other thing I will note, that this isn`t just something that is happening to the president. Obviously, he was a target of this attempt, but we have seen in the last year Capitol Hill police saying more than 15,000 credible reports of violence against members of Congress or their staff. The DHS, Homeland Security, recently put a briefing out saying that the harassment of federal judges has been surging. So this is something that, if you are engaged in politics at all -- now, it`s always been a business where there was a risk to you in deciding to be a public figure in politics. Today -- and I have talked to people who have said, I would like to run, but I will not do that to my family and put myself at that risk. (CROSSTALK) TAMARA KEITH: I would just... AMNA NAWAZ: Go ahead, Tam. TAMARA KEITH: What Amy`s saying makes me think about one of the things that just isn`t on my mind permanently, which is, as I was underneath the tables, as we all were, waiting to see if it was safe, and I looked up and I saw Majority Whip Steve Scalise being escorted out the center aisle of the room. And he walks with a little bit of a limp because he survived a politically motivated shooting in 2017 at the Congressional Baseball Game. And so that`s just seared into my mind seeing him going through another scare.

On Tuesday’s episode of The View, ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg was angrily shouting into the camera as she was demanding people to stop blaming the left for liberals repeatedly trying to kill President Trump and other Republicans. Meanwhile, in that same episode, she and co-host Joy Behar again suggested Trump was going to try to stay in office after his term was up, like a dictator. An accusation that could possibly incite someone to violence. Leading into the segment, about the right calling out the left for their violence and their repeated attempts to kill Trump, Goldberg griped about White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt do just that from the White House podium. Goldberg (70) acted like child, make a mocking face and cringing when she said Leavitt’s name: So yesterday, you remember when we were talking about rhetoric and all - all the rhetoric has to stop? So yesterday, White House Press secretary Karoline Leavitt [makes a mocking face and cringes] claimed that politically charged rhetoric from the left inspired the Correspondents Dinner shooter. After playing soundbites of Republicans calling out the left, Goldberg reappeared and started shouting her demands into the camera. “What are you talking about?! What are talking - Stop!” she screech, demanding that people ignore the truth. “This has gotta stop. This has gotta stop. You gotta stop pointing the finger! You guys brought it up yesterday. You have to stop pointing fingers!” Meanwhile, last year, Goldberg called him a dictator.   Whoopi screams at you and demands you ignore the obvious, that liberal rhetoric is inspiring people to attempt to assassinate the president: "What are you talking about?! What are talking - Stop! This has gotta stop. This has gotta stop. You gotta stop pointing the finger! You… pic.twitter.com/v6yQZ5UnYw — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 29, 2026   It was another example of The View’s dangerous hypocrisy. Earlier in the show, Behar got into an argument with co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, where the former insisted that Trump was singularly responsible for ALL the division and hatred in America: FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s bigger than Donald Trump though, and I think we make a mistake by pretending that all division in this country springs from one man. I do want to - I think this is such an important point. I want to pull up BEHAR [interrupting]: Excuse me, it does! FARAH GRIFFIN: No, BEHAR: He started this! HOSTIN: The divisiveness. FARAH GRIFFIN: There's so much, there's so much more in this country. It predated Donald Trump. It will postdate him. This is not all gonna go away when he's out of office. BEHAR: But it’s - gah - It’s - It’s - the cult needs a head, and he's the head.   "He started this!" Joy Behar claims all hate and division in America started with Trump. pic.twitter.com/CSYw69rOF6 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 29, 2026   Additionally, Behar and Goldberg suggested that the new White House ballroom was proof that Trump was planning to stay in office and cling onto power after his term was up, like a dictator: GOLDBERG: It's not your building! It's not yours! That's the first thing this is - this belongs to the people of the United States of America it is not your building! So building this ballroom basically means you're never leaving! BEHAR: Exactly. That's my question. Is he planning to live there? GOLDBERG: I guess so!   Inciting another attempt to kill Trump? The View again claims the ballroom proves Trump never plans to leave office: GOLDBERG: It's not your building! It's not yours! That's the first thing this is - this belongs to the people of the United States of America it is not your… pic.twitter.com/jFAAKpA5Jg — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 29, 2026   Elsewhere in the same episode, co-host Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor who they brag always brings her receipts, claimed that a newly released donor list for the ballroom contained suspicious and dubious people and organizations. But when Goldberg teed her up to dish the names, Hostin floundered and came up empty: HOSTIN: And The Washington Post is reporting that that list is now available and perhaps includes people that should not be donating to a government property. GOLDBERG: What do you mean? What do you mean? [Looks to the audience with a faux shock] [Laughter] HOSTIN: Well, um. It, it just lists, um, some people and organizations perhaps that shouldn't be doing that. And so the other thing, uh, so, so I think that's why they're now asking for taxpayer dollars because it is a vanity project.   Inciting another attempt to kill Trump? The View again claims the ballroom proves Trump never plans to leave office: GOLDBERG: It's not your building! It's not yours! That's the first thing this is - this belongs to the people of the United States of America it is not your… pic.twitter.com/jFAAKpA5Jg — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 29, 2026   For years, NewsBusters has tracked The View’s incendiary rhetoric. You can check our 2025 and 2024 roundups by clicking the links. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 28, 2026 11:04 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: It's not your building! It's not yours! That's the first thing this is - this belongs to the people of the United States of America it is not your building! So building this ballroom basically means you're never leaving! JOY BEHAR: Exactly. That's my question. Is he planning to live there? GOLDBERG: I guess so! (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Last year, the White House released a list of about 37 donors. That wasn't a full list. Now recently, the Public Citizen, this organization sued to obtain the contract regarding the billion dollars - the billionaires who were fundraising. And The Washington Post is reporting that that list is now available and perhaps includes people that should not be donating to a government property. GOLDBERG: What do you mean? What do you mean? [Looks to the audience with a faux shock] [Laughter] HOSTIN: Well, um. It, it just lists, um, some people and organizations perhaps that shouldn't be doing that. And so the other thing, uh, so, so I think that's why they're now asking for taxpayer dollars because it is a vanity project. A thousand seats for a ballroom. (…) BEHAR: We are planning to vote in November. He has a 33 percent approval rating which will probably go into the 20s very shortly. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s bigger than Donald Trump though, and I think we make a mistake by pretending that all division in this country springs from one man. I do want to - I think this is such an important point. I want to pull up BEHAR [interrupting]: Excuse me, it does! FARAH GRIFFIN: No, BEHAR: He started this! HOSTIN: The divisiveness. FARAH GRIFFIN: There's so much, there's so much more in this country. It predated Donald Trump. It will postdate him. This is not all gonna go away when he's out of office. BEHAR: But it’s - gah - It’s - It’s - the cult needs a head, and he's the head. (…) GOLDBERG: So yesterday, you remember when we were talking about rhetoric and all - all the rhetoric has to stop? So yesterday, White House Press secretary Karoline Leavitt [makes a mocking face and cringes] claimed that politically charged rhetoric from the left inspired the Correspondents Dinner shooter. (…) GOLDBERG: And you know, here were Democrats, independents, and Republicans in that room. What are you talking about?! What are talking - Stop! This has gotta stop. This has gotta stop. You gotta stop pointing the finger! You guys brought it up yesterday. You have to stop pointing fingers! (…)

NPR “domestic extremism correspondent” Odette Yousef has a consistent pattern of finding extremism only on the “far right.” When Cole Tomas Allen shot up the White House Correspondents Dinner, that was somehow not left-wing extremism, as NPR’s headlines over Yousef's reportage/camouflage from Monday's All Things Considered claimed: Shooting suspect's online presence belies claims of 'radicalism' And: With no radical footprint, what drove suspect to try and assassinate Trump? But wait! The violence itself defines extremism! But in Odette's oeuvre, only right-wingers can be radicals.  Last fall, she laboriously avoided tagging Charlie Kirk's killer as leftist: "the landscape of political violence and violent extremism in the U.S., I think, is much more complex....I think we often assume political violence means right-on-left violence or left-on-right violence. But, you know, we increasingly see these instances that don't map onto those divides." Now Cole Allen can't be tagged as a radical leftist. Yousef turned to one of her normal leftist "extremism experts," Jared Holt (formerly with People For The American Way), who claimed Allen's Bluesky account was "really not that  radical." But then it turned bizarre. Yousef added: "there's also nothing we found that seems overtly conspiracist." What?? Odette Yousef looking for the WHCD shooter's radical footprint: https://t.co/dJ4zrLDtGa pic.twitter.com/Stnfr45Rx4 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 29, 2026 It quickly emerged that Allen reposted the idea that Trump being shot in the ear in Butler, Pennsylvania was faked. That went unmentioned. He also believed Trump was a rapist and a pedophile, as Yousef acknowledged: "Yes, he was using terms like rapist or pedophile in reference to the president. But honestly, his content falls into a kind of mainstream left now, Scott." Shouldn't that make the so-called "mainstream left" a hive of fringy conspiracy theories? No, not when NPR gets to define terms.  Yousef restated her constant thesis: "The data show that political violence from the left has increased in the last year, but that is from a very low baseline over the last 10 years. And in the last decade, political violence has overwhelmingly been associated with the far right." This is easier to sustain if you refuse to admit that any of the leftist shooters are leftists.  The shooter's just an everyday American, she concluded: after talking to her sources, what emerges "is just this person's admittedly thin online presence and writings paint a picture of a pretty normal guy with views that are quite common in America. You know, it doesn't appear that there was any so-called radicalization" -- until he loaded up with guns and knives at the Washington Hilton.  PS: In the longer online article, she quotes Holt making this point:  "You look at the social media profiles that have been attributed to this suspect and they're really not that radical," said Jared Holt, senior researcher at Open Measures, a company that tracks online threats and narratives. "Oftentimes it's like quite centrist, pretty moderate left wing, if anything." An affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of the charges claims that Allen sent an email to members of his family moments before initiating the attack. The email specifies some grievances against Trump administration officials and policies. "I'm not the person raped in a detention camp. I'm not the fisherman executed without trial. I'm not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration," the letter states. The letter appears to reference a range of issues from immigration detentions under the Trump administration, U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, the bombing of a girls' school in Iran and the Epstein scandal. In an apparent reference to Trump, the letter also says "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." But Holt and others say these views, however pointed some of the terminology may be, fall within a modern mainstream left.

On Wednesday's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough said: “Let us hope, post-Trump, there’s more of a Marco Rubio reset.” Is that the sound of Joe volunteering for Marco ’28? This would be a little weird, since ten years ago, he was slamming Rubio as the emptiest suit in the room, and he was yelling at Nicolle Wallace for being too pro-Rubio. Scarborough cast Rubio as a throwback to pre-Trump Republicanism, praising his “long-held beliefs” while noting he has “cowered at times.” Is this just analysis—or is Scarborough signaling the kind of Republican he might actually back in the post-Trump era? Can he back a Republican and still be in the good graces of the MS NOW audience? The real test of Scarborough’s hoped-for Rubio reset would come in the general election. If Rubio were to win the Republican nomination, would Scarborough support him against a Democratic opponent? I wouldn't bet the chicken parmigiana on it.  Axios’s Jim VandeHei then shifted the conversation, suggesting Americans may be reassessing their own behavior: “Maybe I should be a little bit of a better person. Maybe I should show a little bit of self-restraint.” Mika Brzezinski closed the exchange with: “Really good point.” But does that “good point” apply only to Trump and his supporters—or to the people at that table as well? If anyone on that set could stand to heed a call for “self-restraint,” it would be Joe Scarborough. WATCH: Scarborough Backs ‘Rubio Reset’ After Trump pic.twitter.com/TElTMajSHh — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 29, 2026 Scarborough has spent years leveling some of the harshest rhetoric in cable news at Donald Trump—“Hitler,” “fascist,” “thug,” among them. When VandeHei talks about the country “sobering up" and exercising restraint, the question is whether Scarborough is prepared to do the same. And what happens to Morning Joe’s brand, built on harsh anti-Trump, anti-conservative rhetoric, if Scarborough dialed it down—and actually backed Rubio in ’28? Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 4/29/26 6:21 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: There's something else that lies underneath this, Jim. One of the reasons why the King's message was so receptive, and Republicans shouldn't fool themselves, they're not Republicans, MAGA, MAGA people shouldn't fool themselves and say, oh, it's just because it was the King.  No, it's because he touched upon things that most Americans believe in but Republicans are afraid to say, as they run Washington, D.C. 60% of Americans support NATO. 60% of Americans think America gets a lot out of NATO. 62% of Americans support the United States defending and fighting for Ukraine with economic support. 62%!  We've talked about this before. Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, the people who hate Ukraine, who prove every day that they hate Ukraine, who hate NATO, who prove every day that they hate NATO, who hate our European allies that helped us take down the Soviet Union, who prove that every day, they are on the wrong side of American history. And the overwhelming majority of Americans are against them.  So, let us hope, post-Trump, there's more of a Marco Rubio reset, who unfortunately has cowered at times on his long-held beliefs. But what the King was saying yesterday is what Republicans have always believed, but are now afraid to say because of Donald Trump.  VANDEHEI: I think you're, you know I think you're right. I think that this is a great country filled with good people. 60% of people or more agree on almost everything topically. And it just gets lost in politics.  I'm going to use some Wisconsin slang to explain what I think's going on right now. I think people are waking up. It's like, we went on a bender. Everybody drank too damn much, and now they're a little bit ashamed. They did things they didn't think they should do. And I think they want to sober up. And they want to think about, yeah, maybe I should be a little bit of a better person. Maybe I should show a little bit of self-restraint.  And again, I think it's just a flicker. And polls aren't going to pick this up. And we're really not going to know for another year or two when we start to see the next political campaign kick off. But you're starting to see that.  And I would encourage everyone, if you have any time. Go listen to that extended version on 60 Minutes of Ben Sasse's interview. And just listen to how he talks about community, how he talks about humanity. This is a guy who's dying, who's seen it all. He's been in politics. He might have a couple weeks, couple months, left. He speaks so lyrically, so powerfully, so beautifully about what we could be and how close we are to being what we could be.  And it's just such a beautiful reminder. Listen to that. Listen to the King's speech. Turn off social media and get a life.  MIKA: Yeah, really good point.