History has an interesting way of softening the hard edges of a past president’s term of office. Time, combined with more information coming to light as well as a more complete verdict re: the long-term impacts, good and bad, of policies will do that. As such, the placement along the scale of best to worst of those who sat in the Oval Office is always shifting.
But 39th President James Earl Carter, Jr., who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jimmy-carter-americas-39th-president-dead-at-100?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed away</a> at age 100, is a presidency difficult to encapsulate. Peruse the media obituaries and a common theme will no doubt emerge. That he was a man of personal character and decency, the “real deal.” Indeed, his will be hailed as “the ideal former-presidency” given his image of skating above politics and keeping his focus on initiatives more beneficial to mankind, whether it be building a house for the poor or monitoring elections abroad. It will be said of him that he lived out his Christian virtues staying faithful to the same woman for 77 years.
But this does not alter the fact that his term in office from 1977 to 1981 was, to put it bluntly, a failure.
From a foreign policy standpoint, Carter attempted to affect statecraft grounded in the promotion of “human rights”. But what many in this country at the time may have seen as noble ambitions, especially coming in the aftermath of Vietnam, was read by enemies abroad as weakness arising from an almost quaint naiveté. This perceived weakness gained validation when in November 1979 anti-American Islamists overthrew the Shah of Iran and stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran — sovereign U.S. territory as per international law. 52 embassy staff were taken hostage and subsequently held in very public and humiliating captivity for 444 days.
<div id="attachment_851055" style="width: 862px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-851055" class="size-large wp-image-851055" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2669616-852x576.jpg" alt="An American hostage being paraded before the cameras by his Iranian captors. Following the Iranian revolution over fifty American hostages were taken and only released after four hundred and forty-four days. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)" width="852" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2669616-852x576.jpg 852w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2669616-300x203.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2669616-768x519.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2669616.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 852px) 100vw, 852px" />MPI/Getty Images</div>
This affront to our national honor was made ever more acute when six months into the crisis, after fruitless diplomatic overtures, a mission to rescue the captive U.S. citizens resulted in a humiliating failure in the Iranian desert. The mission was scrubbed due to equipment breakdowns and eight servicemen were killed when a helicopter collided with a transport plane during the evacuation. Images of the charred bodies of our dead troops were splashed across headlines around the world, and a somber Carter took to the airwaves to accept responsibility.
The botched raid was not just a shameful blow to our national pride, it underscored a deeper sense that U.S. power was eroding, and that our best days were behind us. The military that once defeated the war machines of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan couldn’t even get out of its own way in the desert? Maybe we really were in decline? The hostages would languish for all the world to see — and the anti-U.S. forces from Moscow to Beijing to Tehran to gloat over — for another 270 hapless days.
When in 1980 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter’s boycotting the Olympic games in Moscow seemed a tepid, and largely symbolic response that only served to punish our own athletes while not changing Russian actions one iota. Whether or not there was more the Carter administration could have done given the Soviets’ nuclear arsenal is a matter for round tables to discuss. At the time, however, this was viewed as yet another anemic response to flagrant enemy aggression; Americans came to believe we had a lamb in the White House when a lion was needed. And as not-so-clandestine support for the Mujahadeen throughout the Reagan era demonstrated, the U.S. did have more capacity to put the thumb on the scales in the region than Carter seemed willing to do.
The thing about Carter, however, is that not only was he unable, or unwilling to recognize certain bad actors on the world stage, he failed to understand who were the true friends to the U.S. as well. One must consider his double-standard leveled against Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians. In particular the PLO, which by any impartial definition was a terror organization. And its leader, the vile, murderous kleptocrat Yasser Arafat, a bona fide terrorist. It was the Israelis, however, whom Carter targeted for restrictions and even grotesquely drew an analogy between their efforts to combat terrorism and the growling hounds of Bull Connor. Certainly if the recollections of respected columnist William Safire and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance are to be believed, Carter was rabidly anti-Israel. For the Israelis, it was very fortunate Carter did not win a second term.
But what about the Camp David Accords? Certainly they were a worthy effort and seem to be among the only such accords between ancient enemies that have survived more or less intact. But, as Jay Nordlinger writes in National Review, Sadat and Begin had already hammered them out prior to inviting Carter in to provide the carapace of legitimacy — and financial support — only the U.S. could offer. It is not a stretch to say that no matter who was president, Camp David would have still occurred.
<div id="attachment_851047" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-851047" class="size-large wp-image-851047" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-1826042-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 18: (NO U.S. TABLOID SALES) (L-R) Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin join hands after the Camp David Accords September 18, 1978 in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-1826042-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-1826042-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-1826042-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-1826042.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images</div>
At least the Carter presidency promoted the legitimate democratic process, right? Well, it did in that he even went so far as to praise Yasser Arafat’s election. Indeed, Carter was perhaps the PLO chairman’s biggest fan in the halls of the U.S. government. Although as CIA director Jim Woolsey once joked, “Arafat was essentially ’elected’ the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as democratically as Hitler, who at least had actual opponents.”
And, of course, given Carter’s wish to be remembered as the champion of the downtrodden and oppressed (although it depends on who is wearing the jackboots, as Carter seemed to have a look-the-other-way affinity for Marxist dictators whether in Beijing, Havana, or Managua) then it is natural that he would side with the weaker, if morally depraved, Hamas and Hezbollah. As his Bull Connor comparison shows, he would be quite at home today among the throngs of Intifada wannabes on the college campus who view the Arab-Israeli conflict not through the lens of morality but power. In 2014, Carter wrote of Hamas: “Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor—one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people—can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons.” Seems a bit optimistic since October 7. Even though the body may change, the intransigent mind of the true believer may remain fixed in place,but this is the disastrous Carter naiveté in the main.
And then there was the economy.
Since the mid-1980s, even with the occasional recession (often of our own making) the U.S. has experienced a sustained economic boom that makes it hard to remember the years leading up to this age of prosperity. But when Carter was in office things were quite different. The middle class especially was hammered with inflation that surged from <a href="https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet">6.3%</a> in November 1976 when Carter was elected to a peak of <a href="https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet">13.6%</a> in June 1980. Rising interest rates saw 30-year mortgages balloon from 8.8% in November 1976 to briefly touch 18.44% in October 1981, only months into Reagan’s first term. Although there is a lingering misconception that unemployment also soared during the Carter years the data shows this is not the case. In fact, unemployment would not peak until 1983, well into Reagan’s first term. But this could be attributed to Fed policies to crush inflation with exorbitantly high rates leading to a deep recession that had a delayed effect.
I admit that such wonkish analysis gets into the weeds of economics and as the expression goes, “if you lay every economist foot-to-head around the world they couldn’t reach a consensus.” But what is certainly true is that during the Carter years, the “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/miseryindex.asp">misery index</a>”, economist Arthur Okun’s formula he created in the 1970s to quantify the true impacts of the economy’s performance on the lives of the average American, reached an all-time high of 21.3% in May 1980. (By contrast it currently runs at 7.2%).
As such, the most powerful argument his GOP opponent Ronald Reagan would make during the 1980 presidential campaign was simply to look into the camera and ask the American people: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The voters answered and Carter was defeated.
<div id="attachment_851051" style="width: 837px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-851051" class="size-large wp-image-851051" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-487170453-827x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK CITY - AUGUST 14: Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter attend Democratic National Convention on August 14, 1980 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. (Photo by Ron Galella, Ltd./Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images)" width="827" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-487170453-827x576.jpg 827w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-487170453-300x209.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-487170453-768x535.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-487170453.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 827px) 100vw, 827px" />Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter attend Democratic National Convention on August 14, 1980 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. (Photo by Ron Galella, Ltd./Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images)</div>
The common narrative of Carter’s post-presidential years is that of the farmer who returned to his humble roots in Plains, Georgia, and lived a modest life that all ex-presidents should emulate.
Well, yes and no.
Carter’s work in founding the Carter Center, a non-profit dedicated to the advancement of human rights, as well as his hands-on (literally) involvement building homes for the poor with the Habitat For Humanity project has earned him justified accolades from across the political spectrum. But at the same time he did his share of meddling in U.S. affairs, and sometimes questionably so. While in 1990 George W. Bush was cobbling together his Gulf War coalition, Carter was writing letters to the UN trying to thwart his efforts. Given that his friend Arafat sided with Saddam, one is not surprised. But considering the media’s pouncing on Trump for just weighing in (while a candidate for president no less) on the Democrats’ sham border bill, one can only see a double-standard here. There are other examples but this is the most egregious. One thing is for sure, had Trump engaged in such behavior the word “treason” would be tossed around like a football on Sunday.
And so Jimmy Carter’s story is really one compiled of two narratives. Unfortunately, being a supposedly good man (I never met him ) does not always lead to being a successful president. No man is a saint to his valet, and Carter is no exception. I have no doubt many reading this can offer up less favorable language for him. Who am I to judge? But Carter’s legacy after some five decades in politics from Georgia governor to one-term president, is starting to reveal itself, warts and all. In the end, Jimmy Carter should be remembered for leading a successful life, but a failed presidency.
* * *
Brad Schaeffer is a fund manager and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three books</a>. His articles have appeared on the pages of Daily Wire, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, The Blaze, Breitbart, Zerohedge and other outlets. You can follow him on <a href="https://x.com/bschaeffer123" target="_blank" rel="noopener">X</a> and <a href="https://bradschaeffer.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Substack.</a> 

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

1976 Democratic National Convention

Jimmy Carter’s Unavoidable Legacy

Jimmy Carter's Unavoidable Legacy

Afghanistan

Democrats

Inflation

Iran

Israel

Jimmy Carter

Middle East

Opinion

Presidency

Ronald Reagan

Soviet Union

Yasser Arafat

I am not yet tired of winning. The winning just continues. 
I am truly enjoying the staffing of the new Trump administration so far. According to the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-selects-florida-rep-mike-waltz-as-national-security-adviser-104414fe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wall Street Journal</a>, there are a couple of picks that have been made. One has been announced: Florida GOP Representative Mike Waltz, a Green Beret veteran, to be White House national security adviser. The Journal also reported that President-elect Trump is expected to nominate Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as Secretary of State.
President Trump is moving fast. He is staffing professionally. He&#8217;s finding people who are loyal to the Trump vision, the “peace through strength” vision.
President Trump was on this show two weeks before Election Day, and I specifically asked him about his foreign policy. He said repeatedly that peace through strength is his foreign policy.
That’s what over 75 million Americans voted for: Trump&#8217;s peace through strength.
Trump’s picks are going to do his bidding in the foreign policy realm; they will reinforce his Trump doctrine, which is, “Cross this line and I will punch you so hard in the face you will not want to do it again.” 
That is the Trump doctrine and it is a great doctrine, an excellent foreign policy doctrine, which is why we had four years with no wars. Contrary to certain popular opinions, war is only prevented by preparing for war so you don&#8217;t have to do it. That is the actual way that you prevent war. 
Submission and cowardice were tried with Joe Biden. It didn&#8217;t go particularly well.
Donald Trump does precisely the reverse. As I said on Fox Business, President Trump is the best foreign policy president of my lifetime, bar none.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2083-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Marco Rubio entered with the Tea Party wave back in 2010, and then ran for president against Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump has a unique capacity to let bygones be bygones, which is why, of course, despite the fact that JD Vance said some unkind things about him back in 2016, Vance is his vice president. Rubio has proven himself to be a formidable asset on the campaign trail; he was loyal to President Trump&#8217;s vision and was an early Trump endorser in the primaries.
Not only that, Rubio has proven himself on foreign policy. He&#8217;s on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he&#8217;s great on television, and he knows all the players. In one instance, he was walking down a hallway being harassed by a pro-Hamas heckler from Code Pink.
It didn&#8217;t go well for <a href="https://x.com/yashar/status/1856171518994329616" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the heckler:</a>
<blockquote>Heckler: Senator Rubio, will you call for a ceasefire?
Rubio: No, I will not. (turning to someone accompanying the heckler) Are you filming this? I want you guys to get this. (turning back to heckler) I want them to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals who did horrifying crimes. And I hope you guys post that.
Heckler: What about the civilians killed every day?
Rubio: I blame Hamas. Hamas should stop hiding behind civilians, putting civilians in the way. Hamas knew that this was going to lead to this, so Hamas should stop building their military installations underneath hospitals.
Heckler: So you don&#8217;t care that 15,000 died. You don&#8217;t care about the babies that are being killed every day.
Rubio: Absolutely I care. I think it’s horrifying. I think it&#8217;s terrible. I think Hamas is 100% to blame. That&#8217;s what I think. Make sure you post that, please.</blockquote>
Rubio has also said that if you come to the United States on a visa and you proceed to spew anti-American, anti-Semitic nonsense, you should be gone. 
He <a href="https://www.rubio.senate.gov/english-espanol-senate-democrats-block-rubio-resolution-calling-on-biden-to-revoke-visas-of-hamas-sympathizers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a> on the Senate floor: 
<blockquote>What I am saying is common sense. You’re a visitor. You are not even American. You’re a foreign national. You’re here because we gave you a visa to be here temporarily, and now you’re out there defending and supporting Hamas, a terrorist organization? You need to go. That’s what this resolution asks the administration to do. I hope we can get a vote on it in the Senate, so everyone will know where everyone here stands.</blockquote>
Rubio is repeating the Trump line with regard to Ukraine, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not that the United States is going to cut and run from Ukraine.
Trump does not like losing. He likes to win, as we have noticed. And what does that mean?
It doesn&#8217;t mean endless war in Ukraine. What it means is that the United States supports Ukraine sufficient to prevent a Russian invasion of Kyiv, but also looks for an off-ramp with Putin settling the lines where they are already settled. That is what the deal has looked like since 2022.
Rubio pointed out that the Biden administration had no plan in Ukraine, <a href="https://x.com/SenMarcoRubio/status/1854252665418772536" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying:</a>
<blockquote>If you ask the Biden administration, they will tell you we are funding a stalemate. I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong in standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we are funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion because that country is going to be set back 100 years. Now, that doesn&#8217;t mean that we celebrate what Vladimir Putin did or are excited about it. But I think there has to also be some common sense here, and that is that right now what we are funding is a stalemate that&#8217;s costing lives. It&#8217;s going to take 100 years to rebuild that poor country with everything they are facing now.</blockquote>
He is not wrong about that. And that is why President Trump is attempting to seek an offramp there.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
Mike Waltz has been a bulldog on national security. Waltz slammed Secretary of State Antony Blinken to his face in a hearing, saying:
<blockquote>Mr. Secretary, I have here the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, the invasion of Ukraine, the unholy alliance between Russia and China, Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israel, Houthi attacking international shipping, hostages in Gaza, Iran flush with cash, the reemergence of ISIS-K now six thwarted attacks in Europe, increased Chinese aggression and the collapse of our influence in central Africa … You&#8217;re going to tell the American people with this list they&#8217;re safer?</blockquote>
Peace through strength.
Trump means it.

Donald Trump Campaigns In Pennsylvania With One Week Until Election Day

More Winning! Trump Goes Full Peace Through Strength

2024 Election

Ben Shapiro

Donald Trump

Marco Rubio

Mike Waltz

Secretary of State

Nick Searcy fondly recalls the Reagan years and even worked on a documentary detailing the 40th president’s bond with the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev titled &#8220;America! America! God Shed His Grace on Thee.&#8221;
He still learned plenty by co-starring in “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dennis-quaids-reagan-loved-by-audiences-hated-by-critics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reagan,</a>” the late summer biopic of the conservative icon.
Dennis Quaid brings The Gipper to life in “Reagan,” now available for purchase at Amazon, iTunes and more platforms. The sweeping biopic starts with Ronald Reagan’s early days and goes through his consequential White House years.
Searcy plays James Baker in the film, Reagan’s Chief of Staff and, later, his Treasury Secretary. The “Justified” alum did his due diligence before stepping on the set, watching as many clips of Baker’s public appearances from that era.
<div id="attachment_815029" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-815029" class="size-large wp-image-815029" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1024x427.jpg" alt="'Reagan'. MJM Entertainment. Rawhide Pictures. " width="1024" height="427" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1024x427.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-300x125.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-768x320.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1536x640.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BMDIyODhmNDMtMzJkYy00OTg2LWJmZDctYTEwZWNiMDI5ZjhmXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />&#8216;Reagan&#8217;. MJM Entertainment. Rawhide Pictures.</div>
Searcy learned why Reagan chose Baker in the first place. Baker had opposed Reagan in the 1980 presidential campaign, aligning with his future vice president, George H. W. Bush.
“Reagan saw him as being such a good negotiator and diplomat,” Searcy says, noting his differences with his on-screen character. “I’m a bit more of an ideologue than he was,” he adds with a chuckle.
The actor didn’t know as much about Reagan’s life before becoming the country’s 40th president. “Reagan” fills in those blanks, from his transition from Hollywood to politics to his days as president of the Screen Actors Guild.
The leader’s political ascent is the film’s focus, but “Reagan” is as much a love story as a look at one of the country’s most formidable politicians (Consider the term “Reagan Democrats” as just one example of his impact).
Penelope Ann Miller stands by Quaid’s side as Nancy Reagan, part of a Beltway power couple that changed the course of history.
You might not grasp Reagan’s role in the Cold War’s demise and “Morning in America” if you followed the Hollywood narrative, the actor maintains.
Searcy says the industry’s take on Reagan has been “mostly negative,” including a controversial 2003 Showtime miniseries blasted by the president’s defenders for several key scenes. One sequence causes sizable outcry – James Brolin’s Reagan says of gay AIDS sufferers, &#8220;They that live in sin shall die in sin.&#8221;
Reagan never uttered such a dehumanizing phrase.
“Reagan,” Searcy says, “corrects the image of Reagan that the Hollywood Left was perpetrating,” that of a “doddering old fool who wanted nuclear war.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-815097 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/MV5BOTE4YzdiOGQtMzNjOS00MTY3LWJhNTYtOGEzZmIxYTVkMDVkXkEyXkFqcGc%40._V1_.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
The actor adds another reason why the film’s 2024 release matters. MAGA nation may not understand how much the Left loathed President Reagan long before a certain real estate mogul joined the political fray in 2015.
“Everyone seems to think Trump is some unique person who deserves to be hated,” he says.
Searcy is one of a handful of openly conservative actors, and he’s maintained a steady career despite the industry’s aversion to Right-leaning talent. He’s recently been joined by both Quaid and “Shazam!” star Zachary Levi. Both endorsed Trump in recent weeks, with Levi admitting the decision could be “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/actor-zachary-levi-endorses-trump-we-are-going-to-take-back-this-country">career suicide</a>.”
Searcy thinks he knows why they’re speaking out now.
“People see the situation a little more clearly now and what’s at stake &#8230; what good is it if you hang onto your career but you lose your country,” he says.
He posits another reason for mainstream stars to pick a side.
“Hollywood is losing its position as the center of the entertainment universe,” he says, noting how many productions have fled for Canada and tax-friendly states with lower costs of living.
The Hollywood Reporter <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/judd-apatow-film-tv-production-california-1236033941/">confirmed the actor’s concerns:</a>
<blockquote>Shooting days slipped 5 percent over a three-month period from July to September to 5,048, marking the weakest quarter of 2024, and every category of scripted production lags behind five-year averages on both a per-quarter and year-to-date basis.</blockquote>
That’s not the only change allowing Right-leaning stars to speak their minds.
Searcy notes new distribution companies, like SDG Releasing which handled the Daily Wire’s “<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist?</a>” or ShowBiz Direct distributing “Reagan” and a possible new <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-media-announces-release-truth-123000766.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAYvUMT0AIK9THCiUNaW-hryhWZR1fZKbuWoXlA6zl8n6Sx_-fI31nL_WfT9g6tdSwjBLNF7or2Iix1zMT446igZJYc6jz-3ZHSJg8v4w3jibcJAWkHgSzq7-8Hjpm7TPW6CwVDNvOTHFH-OVtViuxxd44E5lQEM_2huTJGEbnn4">streaming platform</a> from Team Trump, Truth+.
“The infrastructure is being built. We don’t have to suck up to the Hollywood Left anymore,” he says.
<div id="attachment_396198" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-396198" class="size-large wp-image-396198" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/Nick-Searcy_Carano-864x576.jpg" alt="Gina Carano “Terror On The Prairie” Premiere Nashville, Tennessee." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/Nick-Searcy_Carano-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/Nick-Searcy_Carano-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/Nick-Searcy_Carano-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/06/Nick-Searcy_Carano.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Photo: Dana Commandatore/ The Daily Wire</div>
For now, Searcy nimbly dances between mainstream Hollywood projects (“The Shape of Water,” Netflix’s “The Perfect Couple”) and indie fare (“Terror on the Prairie,” “The Old Way”). He also produces Right-leaning documentaries like “Capitol Punishment.”
That’s all while holding nothing back on X via @yesnicksearcy.
“I hope people see that and take courage in it,” he says, understanding he’s likely lost work for his outspoken views.
His political musings have opened up new creative doors. Consider his appearances in the last two Dinesh D’Souza films (“Police State” and “Vindicating Trump”). He also signed a deal with a Nashville-based company to direct and co-write a passion project about a gospel quartet in the 1960s.
“There is a certain gratification in following your heart and doing what you believe in and letting the chips fall where they may,” he says.
Ironically, Hollywood did have plans for a different “Reagan” biopic in recent years, but it was nothing like what Searcy and Quaid delivered with their movie. The 2016 project, hatched from a Blacklist screenplay, cast Will Ferrell as a dementia-addled leader in a satirical comedy.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a></h3>
The project received a flood of <a href="https://variety.com/2016/film/news/will-ferrell-ronald-reagan-movie-controversy-1201763542/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">furious blowback</a>, including from two of Reagan’s adult children Michael Reagan and Patti Davis. That effectively shuttled any plans to bring it to the big screen.
Searcy wasn’t aware of that proposed film, but he wasn’t surprised to hear about it.
“That’s how the Left in Hollywood uses the [film] medium … it’s evolved from a storytelling medium to a way for them to attack their political opponents,” he says. “I’m waiting for a movie about how feeble Biden was.”
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://x.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@HollywoodInToto</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Nick Searcy

Nick Searcy On ‘Reagan,’ Trump, And Hollywood 2.0

Nick Searcy On 'Reagan,' Trump, And Hollywood 2.0

actors

Conservatives

Entertainment

Hollywod

Leftists

Movies

Actor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/dennis-quaid">Dennis Quaid</a> appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his new historical biopic, “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ronald-reagan">Reagan</a>,” and mentioned the difference between critic ratings and audience scores.
Currently, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/movies">film</a> has an 18% critic score and a 98% audience <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reagan_2024">rating</a> on the popular review site, Rotten Tomatoes. Thanks to so many good marks, “Reagan” has also been marked as “Verified Hot” on the new Popcornmeter, meaning it earned more than 500 four-star ratings from verified ticket purchasers.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: Actor Dennis Quaid discusses his new biopic about President Ronald Reagan. <a href="https://t.co/NQdLaNe88H">pic.twitter.com/NQdLaNe88H</a>
— Fox News Sunday (@FoxNewsSunday) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday/status/1835324175948427567?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When the interviewer <a href="https://x.com/FoxNewsSunday/status/1835324175948427567">asked</a> if Quaid got “a kick out of” the fact that there was such a discrepancy between audience and critic scores, he replied with a laugh, “We had the largest gap in cinema history between critics and audiences.”
As for those critics, he said they “not only panned it, but basically attacked it.” 
“So I guess we must be doing something right, is the way I feel,” Quaid added. 
When urging fans to see “Reagan,” the actor said, “If you were born before 1985, you’ll be able to remember how great this country was. And if you were born after 1985, you can see how great this country still can be.”
Earlier in the conversation, the celeb discussed how he took the role very seriously and initially hesitated to accept the opportunity. “I just remember a bolt of fear going up my spine when I was offered the role,” he said. “Because everybody in the world, they’re gonna know who [Reagan] is and probably have an opinion about him.”
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
“He was also my favorite president,” Quaid added. After visiting the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, the actor said he felt better about his ability to take on the part. “I could really feel him there,” he recalled of the late president, who died in 2004.
“That’s when I knew I had a way in, to portray his humanity… him as a person behind the public persona,” he said. 
“Reagan” is based on the 2006 book “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” by Paul Kengor. The film, directed by Sean McNamara, stars Quaid as the former president and Penelope Ann Miller as his wife, Nancy. Academy Award winner Jon Voight has a supporting role.
It is currently in theaters nationwide.

Dennis Quaid

Dennis Quaid’s ‘Reagan’ Loved By Audiences, Hated By Critics

Dennis Quaid Talks Audiences Loving 'Reagan' Despite Hate From Critics

U.S.

***WARNING: Although the historical events that took place throughout President Ronald Reagan&#8217;s life are well-documented, this article may contain spoilers with regard to the framing and overall presentation of the film.***
The political Left does not appear to want the American people to see &#8220;Reagan&#8221; — at least, not until after the 2024 presidential election is settled.
Actor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dennis-quaid-says-facebook-is-censoring-the-free-flow-of-ideas-throttling-reagan-movie-promos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dennis Quaid</a>, who portrays the titular president, said weeks ago that Facebook was &#8220;throttling advertising and promotion&#8221; for the film, &#8220;once again censoring the free flow of ideas, deciding what’s best for us to see and hear.&#8221;
It&#8217;s true that the American Left never liked Reagan, which could be reason enough for some to think it worth scuttling a movie about him. But after seeing the film myself — and some of the reactions to it — I realized that it goes much deeper than that. They don&#8217;t just hate Reagan the president: they hate Reagan the man. What&#8217;s more, they hate everyone who values the things Reagan stood for, the things that drove him.
Full disclosure: I was a child of the Reagan years. Born in 1979, I never really saw the havoc wrought by President Jimmy Carter&#8217;s administration. The first political speech I remember was Reagan&#8217;s address to the nation in the wake of the Challenger disaster in 1986. I watched the explosion live from my first-grade classroom and saw my teacher quietly crying at her desk — and later, at home, I watched as the president paid solemn tribute to the lives lost in that tragedy. I was eight years old when, just over a year later, I watched Reagan stand in front of the Brandenburg Gate and forcefully urge Mr. Gorbachev to &#8220;tear down this wall!&#8221;
That was all I knew of American presidents, and so that became what I expected of American presidents: someone who could speak with sincerity and solemnity to a nation in pain, but also someone who showed no fear in the face of adversaries on the world stage. I saw flickers of those same things from President George W. Bush in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
Now, the Left is terrified that people will notice those things are not to be found in Vice President Kamala Harris — and even more terrified that they just might see them in former President Donald Trump. That&#8217;s where the &#8220;Reagan&#8221; movie fits in: whether intentionally or not, it draws parallels that are difficult to ignore and even more difficult to explain away.
<h4>They don&#8217;t want a president staying strong in the face of an assassination attempt top of mind.</h4>
The movie begins with a literal &#8220;bang,&#8221; the March 30, 1981 attempt on Reagan&#8217;s life. We get Reagan&#8217;s quip to his wife, Nancy — &#8220;Honey, I forgot to duck&#8221; — and to his surgeons — &#8220;I hope you&#8217;re all Republicans.&#8221;
&#8220;Today, Mr. President, we are all Republicans,&#8221; was the reply from Dr. Joseph Giordano, a liberal Democrat.
Trump may not have lost half of his blood volume when he was shot in the head on July 13th, as Reagan did in 1981. But Trump&#8217;s immediate response to the shooting, despite Secret Service attempts to keep him under cover, was to stand and show his supporters that he was okay. He raised his fist, shouting, &#8220;Fight! Fight! Fight!&#8221; before agents were able to usher him off the stage.
He later described the moment he knew he&#8217;d been hit, saying that at first, it felt like &#8220;a really big <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-bullet-felt-like-mosquito-bite-turning-his-head-saved-his-life-bret-baier" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mosquito</a>.&#8221;
<h4>They don&#8217;t want you seeing value in an unorthodox leader who sometimes ignores his closest advisors.</h4>
Whatever else could be said about Reagan, he had his own negotiating style — whether with foreign leaders, an adversarial Congress, or his own advisors. One of the great examples of this is his Brandenburg Gate speech. His advisors warned him not to unnecessarily provoke Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom he had been discussing nuclear disarmament, by demanding the destruction of the Berlin Wall.
But Reagan, with just a year left in his second term, did so anyway. Two years later, the wall came down. Two years after that, the Soviet Union was no more.
The comparison here is obvious. Trump is nothing if not unorthodox, and he often does or says things against the wishes of his advisors — sometimes with more success than others. A reminder that unorthodoxy can be both necessary and effective is not something the Left wants voters thinking about when they head to the polls.
<h4>They really don&#8217;t want you to remember what it was like to have a man of faith in the Oval Office.</h4>
In American politics, we are accustomed to politicians who go to church for the optics. The current president, for example, often talks about his deep and abiding Catholic faith — and although we do see him attending Mass, we also see him making the Sign of the Cross at an abortion rally. We see him embracing the Pope, but inviting trans-identifying influencers to attend White House events with children present.
Reagan was different, on a number of levels. He rarely attended church while he was president — not because he didn&#8217;t want to, but because he worried that attending the service would disrupt the service at best, and endanger his fellow worshipers at worst.
Still, Reagan&#8217;s faith was what planted the seed that blossomed into the president&#8217;s lifelong crusade against communism — a crusade that began when in Hollywood and came to fruition in the White House. As a young man, Reagan sat in the congregation and listened intently as a Soviet dissident explained that the first thing the communists took was their churches. For Reagan, who had always seen church as a refuge from a tumultuous home life, that was a bridge too far.
<h4>They really, REALLY don&#8217;t want you thinking about the enduring threat of socialism.</h4>
In the movie, Reagan mentions the summer he spent as a lifeguard on a river, and explains how he learned to &#8220;read the currents,&#8221; both on the surface and beneath it. Sometimes, he said of the people he rescued on that river, &#8220;I knew they were in trouble before they did.&#8221;
That ability translated to politics, giving Reagan an ability to read the currents driving both global politics and culture — and to predict how they might interact.
Trump has been less effective at this so far, but he has made it clear that he sees the threat of socialism — and that he knows it is coming, at least in part, from within the United States. In his 2019 State of the Union, Trump vowed that America would never be socialist.
&#8220;Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free,&#8221; he said.
In addition, Trump&#8217;s recent efforts to build a coalition — including former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii — may not have brought in a tidal wave of &#8220;Trump Democrats,&#8221; but they have given him a populist boost that Vice President Harris failed to match with a &#8220;bounce&#8221; from the Democratic National Convention.
For these reasons and more, the political Left clearly does not want you to see the parallels. Rolling Stone <a href="https://x.com/RollingStone/status/1832796110198280409" target="_blank" rel="noopener">panned the film</a>, calling it a &#8220;tedious biopic that shows the American political right will always value propaganda over compelling human drama.&#8221; On <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dennis-quaid-biopic-reagan-outperforms-expectations-earns-high-audience-rating" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rotten Tomatoes,</a> the movie scored a dismal 20% from critics who tend to lean all the way to the Left.
The audience told a different tale, however, giving the film a positive 98%. I&#8217;m with them.

Ronald Reagan At Rancho del Cielo

Here’s Why The Left Hopes You Won’t See ‘Reagan’ — Before The Election, Anyway

Here's Why The Left Hopes You Won't See 'Reagan' — Before The Election, Anyway

Communism

Hollywood

Nancy Reagan

Politics

Readers Pass

Rotten Tomatoes

Socialism

A new biopic of President Ronald Reagan has earned nearly $10 million since premiering and clocked a 98% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, exceeding expectations for the film’s success.
But this success was hardly a foregone conclusion. “Reagan,” directed by Sean McNamara and starring Dennis Quaid as the 40th president, hit several roadblocks on its way to the silver screen. First, the coronavirus pandemic, and then Hollywood strikes derailed production, and delayed the film’s premiere.
Looking back, McNamara sees these delays as “providential.”
“This film…was never intended to come out in an election year,” McNamara told The Daily Wire. “But now, in the wake of recent events, the film feels more urgent and relevant. Watching it today, especially with the backdrop of the recent assassination attempt and campus protests, it’s clear that history has a way of repeating itself. Reagan’s story, and his message, is one that we need to hear right now.”
“Reagan” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-new-trailer-for-reagan-movie-starring-dennis-quaid-just-released" target="_blank" rel="noopener">follows</a> the titular president from his childhood and Hollywood career through his time in politics. Told from the perspective of a fictional KGB agent, portrayed by Jon Voight, the film is based on Paul Kengor’s 2006 book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”
There was another fortuitous result of “Reagan’s” delayed premiere. Sailors aboard the USS Ronald Reagan — who would have been deployed supporting operations including the withdrawal from Afghanistan at the time of the original premiere — were instead able to see the film and meet with McNamara and Voight at a special screening within their hangar bay.
&#8220;This was an incredible Reagan moment aboard USS Ronald Reagan,&#8221; Capt. Harry Evans III, Executive Officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;We pride ourselves in keeping President Reagan&#8217;s legacy alive by upholding the highest standards in everything we do.”
<div id="attachment_790229" style="width: 873px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-790229" class="wp-image-790229 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-863x576.webp" alt="" width="863" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-863x576.webp 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-300x200.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-768x513.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95.webp 999w" sizes="(max-width: 863px) 100vw, 863px" />US NAVY PHOTO</div>
Chief Operations Specialist (Select) Shaun Jacob echoed the significance of the moment, calling it a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity…to learn more about President Reagan’s history.”
The opportunity to share “Reagan” with the sailors was a personal highlight for McNamara.
&#8220;It was amazing,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;I voted for Reagan in my first election, and to come full circle by creating this film and sharing it with those who serve on a ship bearing his name — it was a profound experience.”
Voight, a passionate defender of Reagan’s legacy, told The Daily Wire that the 40th president “believed in the strength of the American spirit” who “led by that example.”
“Every part of our history deserves and needs heroes,” Voight said. “John Paul II was a hero of that time. Reagan was a hero. Margaret Thatcher was a hero in my eyes. All lived and led and worked together during that dark time. And what is a hero? A hero stands up against lies and deceit and evil behavior.”
<div id="attachment_790233" style="width: 873px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-790233" class="size-large wp-image-790233" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-1-863x576.webp" alt="" width="863" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-1-863x576.webp 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-1-300x200.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-1-768x513.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/1000w_q95-1.webp 999w" sizes="(max-width: 863px) 100vw, 863px" />US NAVY PHOTO</div>
Voight also commented on the fortuitous timing of the film’s delayed release coinciding with a period of heightened political tension.
“It’s remarkable how history seems to echo itself,” he said. “With the current political climate and recent events, including the attempted assassination of President Trump and the ongoing student protests, the film’s portrayal of Reagan’s leadership and resilience resonates deeply. It reminds us of the importance of courage and conviction in the face of adversity.”
Voight told The Daily Wire he hopes that “Reagan” will inspire a renewed sense of patriotism in a divided country.
“This movie isn’t just about looking back at Reagan’s presidency; it’s about inspiring us to look forward with hope and unity,” Voight said. “Reagan’s legacy is a testament to the power of leadership and the need for each of us to rise above our differences and work together for a better future.”
“Ronald Reagan’s story is not just about one man’s journey—it’s about the soul of America,” Voight added. “And right now, America needs to remember who we are and what we stand for.”

1000w_q95-2

‘Reagan’s’ Long And Winding Road To Success

Jon Voight

U.S. Navy

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/dennis-quaid">Dennis Quaid</a>’s presidential biopic “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/movies">Reagan</a>” outperformed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/box-office">box office</a> expectations over Labor Day weekend, landing in a close race for third place behind mega-blockbusters like “Deadpool &amp; Wolverine.”
The film, directed by Sean McNamara, stars Quaid as the former president and Penelope Ann Miller as his wife, Nancy. Academy Award winner Jon Voight has a supporting role. Mainstream critics had few good things to say about the film, but despite their negative reviews on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reagan_2024">Rotten Tomatoes</a>, the movie has a 98% audience rating on the review site’s new Popcornmeter compared to a 19% critical rating.
“Reagan” earned $7.4 million Friday through Sunday and could end the four-day weekend with $9.2 million with Monday’s earnings added in, per <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/ronald-reagan-movie-beats-box-office-expectations-1947469">Newsweek</a>.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
The biopic is based on the 2006 book “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” by Paul Kengor. Moviegoers gushed about the film&#8217;s performances and content.
&#8220;Oscar-winning performances for Quaid, Voight, and Miller in this heartfelt biopic that pays homage to one of America&#8217;s most beloved, admired, and effective Presidents. Standing ovation in a packed theater shows how the audience really loved the subject matter and film,&#8221; one reviewer wrote.
“Excellent film! Acting superb! Wonderful biopic about a remarkable man,” another reviewer said. “Really liked how the story was told without extreme partisan position. At the end of the showing, the audience burst into applause, something I haven&#8217;t experienced in years!”
Quaid joined Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro on his “Sunday Special” series to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dennis-quaid-joins-ben-shapiro-on-sunday-special-reveals-what-led-him-to-accept-role-portraying-president-reagan-in-new-film">discuss</a> what led him to take on the role.
“Reagan was my favorite president,” the actor said. “I voted for Jimmy Carter in ’76. It was the first time I could vote, but then I voted for Reagan in ’80.”
Quaid also talked about his complexities and how he tried to portray them onscreen by truly embodying the character. 
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724211156439000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2xQ8bdTcpfdrPBAzczIuck">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a>
“That’s the thing between the impersonation and getting to the person about what makes them tick,” he said. “And there was that thing of Reagan I heard from everyone that knew him, there’s this impenetrable space that he always had that, you know, this is the ‘Great Communicator,’ quite jovial of a person, but there was this place that you couldn’t get past as well, a very private place. And I think that was always there with him from childhood, really.”
&#8220;Reagan&#8221; is currently showing in theaters nationwide.

Dennis Quaid Biopic ‘Reagan’ Outperforms Expectations, Earns High Audience Rating

Dennis Quaid Biopic 'Reagan' Outperforms Expectations, Earns Huge Audience Rating 

Box Office

Talk show host Phil Donahue, who championed various leftist perspectives on his eponymous TV show and changed the industry by interacting with his studio audience, has died at the age of 88.
Donahue’s second wife, former actress Marlo Thomas, to whom he was married for 44 years, was with him and Donahue’s children and grandchildren when he died at his home on Sunday night.
Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Donahue graduated from Notre Dame before starting his broadcasting career, first at KYW-AM TV, then WABJ in Michigan as program/news director, then at WHIO-AM-TV in Dayton as a reporter. In the late 1960s, he hosted a morning interview program on WLWD TV in Dayton, where his first guest was famed atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
“Soon Donahue was tackling controversial subjects like premarital sex and homosexuality as well as other social, political and lifestyle issues,” <a href="https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/phil-donahue-dead-talk-show-host-1236110652/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Variety</a> noted.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723848169620000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3E3OUC3roIcb5fjwk-l_Ct">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
In 1974, his show moved to WGN-TV and was renamed “Donahue.” Newsweek wrote, “One sometimes suspects that Donahue’s idea of the perfect guest is an interracial lesbian couple who have had a child by artificial insemination.”
“And in fact, such a couple appeared on the show in 1979,” Variety pointed out. But the door Donahue had opened for salacious topics prompted other shows to go even further. By 1996, Donahue called it quits as his audience had dwindled, not only because other shows were pushing the envelope further but because his primarily female audience had drifted off to competing hosts such as Oprah Winfrey.
“No apologies&#8211;not for cutting deals to get ‘hot’ guests on the air before anyone else, nor for putting tossed dwarfs and roller games queens and transvestites on the air during the after-school viewing hours, nor for airing panel discussions on such topics as ‘catching your mate in bed with someone else,’” The Los Angeles Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-01-28-ca-1377-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> of Donahue in 1990.
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723848169620000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Sf3qpHNBu8vICyZg-J1qc">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a>
“Come on. Let’s get rid of the pretense and understand that we’ve got an unholy alliance between the media, which is focused on ratings and circulation, and a community of people that it serves in the marketplace who are focused on Madonna, Jim and Tammy Faye and Zsa Zsa!” Donahue snapped.
Donahue <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-01-28-ca-1377-story.html">mocked</a> journalists who did not attack President Ronald Reagan, taunting, “Ronald Reagan, he’s our man, he can fight the Commies if anybody can.” In 2013, Donahue joined a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/dallasmorningnews/photos/a.10151445544918800/10151445551483800/?type=3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protest</a> at the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Phil Donahue Hosting Talk Show

Talk Show Host Phil Donahue Dies At 88

Celebrities

George W. Bush

Phil Donahue

Conservatives won’t get sucker punched while watching “Reagan.”
The Aug. 30 release, featuring Dennis Quaid as the iconic GOP leader, wasn’t made in Liberal Hollywood. Quaid’s affection for the Gipper is another clue. He’s been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/tbd-dennis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sharing</a> his warm feelings for the 40th president across media outlets for some time now.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-781761 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/ronald-reagan-dennis-quaid.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Need more? Consider the cast, which includes openly conservative actors like Robert Davi, Kevin Sorbo and Jon Voight.
The chances of “Reagan” being a two-hour hit piece hover between slim and none, with Vegas money on the latter.
That hasn’t always been the case when it comes to capturing Reagan on screens large and small. Screenwriters have found Reagan irresistible, but they haven’t always hewed to the truth along the way.
Hollywood’s far-Left biases kept getting in the way.
Project after project has attempted to belittle the GOP leader, but those efforts may have had little effect on the public’s appreciation for the two-term president.
<div id="attachment_781737" style="width: 382px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-781737" class="size-large wp-image-781737" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-2624177-372x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES - JULY 16: This handout photo from CBS shot July 16, 2002 shows Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winner James Brolin starring as Ronald Reagan in &quot;The Reagans,&quot; a four-hour special event mini-series to be broadcast Sunday, November 16, 2003 and Tuesday, November 18, on the CBS Television Network. The fact-based drama chronicles the triumphs and tragedies of the extraordinary, iconic couple and the impact that their intense love for each other had on their family, our country and American culture, all set against the backdrop of the political world of the 1980s. (Photo by Cliff Lipson/CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images)" width="372" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-2624177-372x576.jpg 372w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-2624177-194x300.jpg 194w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-2624177.jpg 661w" sizes="(max-width: 372px) 100vw, 372px" />Cliff Lipson/CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images</div>
The best example is “The Reagans.” The CBS miniseries, starring James Brolin as the president and Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan, inspired a scandal so large it changed the course of its broadcast plans.
The 2003 project featured several dubious scenes that made Reagan admirers howl. One draft featured Reagan <a href="https://nypost.com/2003/11/03/cbs-reagans-may-be-sold-to-showtime/">dismissing AIDS sufferers with this line</a>, “They that live in sin shall die in sin.” The quip didn’t make the final cut, but word of its inclusion drowned the project in controversy.
It didn’t help that the real Reagan was alive but deep in the throes of Alzheimer’s disease and couldn’t defend himself.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723898441517000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1rRgpxIJORgZOE6h84U0WT">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
The miniseries caused internal chaos at CBS leading to the network punting the project behind a cable paywall … AKA Showtime.
The FX series “Fargo” used an unlikely actor to bring Reagan to life. “Evil Dead” alum Bruce Campbell briefly embodied the president in season two, set in 1979.
<div id="attachment_781747" style="width: 529px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-781747" class="size-large wp-image-781747" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-491859580-519x576.jpg" alt="HOLLYWOOD, CA - OCTOBER 07: Actor Bruce Campbell attends the premiere of FX's &quot;Fargo&quot; season 2 at ArcLight Cinemas on October 7, 2015 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Jason LaVeris/FilmMagic)" width="519" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-491859580-519x576.jpg 519w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-491859580-270x300.jpg 270w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-491859580-768x852.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/GettyImages-491859580.jpg 923w" sizes="(max-width: 519px) 100vw, 519px" />Jason LaVeris/FilmMagic</div>
A critical scene finds Campbell’s Reagan chatting up a stranger in a men’s bathroom. There’s nothing inappropriate in the exchange, unless you’re a fan of character attacks.
The future president coldly compares his work shooting World War II movies with the stranger’s actual military service.
“Die Hard” favorite Alan Rickman got a crack at playing Reagan in “Lee Daniel’s The Butler” (2013).
Once again, a Hollywood production did its best to mischaracterize the beloved president. The film loosely followed the true-life story of White House butler Eugene Allen, a black employee played by Forest Whitaker.
Scenes showed Allen quitting the job over Reagan’s unwillingness to support South African sanctions and other indignities.
Those closest to Reagan balked at the characterization, noting the leader’s strong stands against racism over the years. Plus, the real butler was reportedly fond of Reagan, undercutting what’s shown on screen.
Adding insult to injury? Casting notorious Hollywood liberal Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan.
<div id="attachment_781751" style="width: 610px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-781751" class="size-full wp-image-781751" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/the-butler-rickman.jpg" alt="This film image released by The Weinstein Company shows Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan, center left, and Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan in a scene from &quot;Lee Daniels' The Butler.&quot; (AP Photo/The Weinstein Company, Anne Marie Fox)" width="600" height="507" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/the-butler-rickman.jpg 600w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/the-butler-rickman-300x254.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" />AP Photo/The Weinstein Company, Anne Marie Fox</div>
Fred Ward, known best for his role in 1990’s “Tremors,” portrayed Reagan in a French film called “Farewell.” The film recalled tense moments between the U.S. and Soviet Union in the 1980s, including an incident <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/farewell-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Reagan referred to</a> as, &#8220;one of the most important espionage cases of the 20th century.&#8221;
Actor Jay Koch briefly played Reagan in not one but three films of various tones – 1995’s “Panther,” 1993’s “Hot Shots! Part Deux” and “Back to the Future Part II” (1989). The professional Reagan impersonator eventually met his real-life inspiration and the cameos in question lacked the partisan rage from other Hollywood projects.
The very worst example of Hollywood maligning Reagan never made it to the screen, but the fact that it came up at all speaks volumes of Hollywood’s hatred of all things Reagan.
Reports said that Will Ferrell was briefly attached to produce and star in a “comedy” highlighting the president’s dementia-addled days in the White House. The concept proved so toxic that Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis and son Michael Reagan publicly condemned the project. They weren’t alone. Ferrell’s representative later suggested he never officially joined the project, written by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5294442/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mike Rosolio</a>.
We’ll never see a film or TV project tied to President Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline in the Oval Office, comedic or otherwise.
The Reagan/Alzheimer’s script circulated in Hollywood for a while and even attracted a star-laden script reading featuring Nathan Fillion, John Cho and James Brolin, essentially reprising his previous time playing Reagan.
Said script was part of “The Black List,” the insider network of beloved but unproduced screenplays.
Adam McKay, a frequent Ferrell contributor and hardcore Leftist, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/12/adam-mckay-ronald-reagan-alzheimers-comedy-will-ferrell" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defended the project</a>.
<blockquote> I kept saying when that story snowballed, ‘Is there anyone who really thinks Will Ferrell would make a comedy about a horrible disease like Alzheimer’s?’ In a million years no one would do that!</blockquote>
A script review conducted by The Hollywood Reporter <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/will-ferrells-reagan-script-actual-888804/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suggested the film was as offensive</a> as originally advertised.
But it does revolve around the conceit that the 40th president had no knowledge of where he was or what he was doing throughout his entire second term. 
Insiders say the real Reagan did not display signs of his eventual Alzheimer’s diagnosis in his final years in the White House. Others disagreed, including son Ron Reagan. A New York Times medical writer Larry Altman investigated the topic extensively and disagreed with the young Reagan’s assessment.
The film site IMDB.com lists the screenplay as “in development,” but there have been no sizable updates on the project in the press.
We don’t know what Quaid’s “Reagan” will share until it opens nationwide. It’s clear the project will be a starkly different Reagan than ones we’ve seen before from La La Land.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://twitter.com/HollywoodInToto?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@HollywoodInToto</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a>

MixCollage-16-Aug-2024-09-35-AM-4710

Playing Reagan: Dennis Quaid Isn’t The First Actor To Play The Gipper

Beneath the coordinated, manufactured hype campaign promoting Kamala Harris, it&#8217;s not hard to detect an air of desperation. We&#8217;re constantly being told that Harris is a transformative candidate who will save democracy as we know it, but she&#8217;s dodged pretty much every opportunity to answer serious questions since stealing the nomination. 
The whole thing violates a basic rule of persuasion, which is that you&#8217;re supposed to show, not tell. Everything&#8217;s more convincing when you see it, instead of hearing about it. But Harris isn&#8217;t capable of making the case for her own candidacy. The best she can do is cackle and repeat her stump speech. So it falls on professional commentators to articulate why it makes sense to vote for her.
The problem that these commentators have is that, if they go into any kind of detail about the policies Harris has said she supports, then she will lose the election. Abolishing ICE, guaranteeing everyone a federal job, outlawing private health insurance, banning fracking — these are all proposals that make it basically impossible to win a national race. That&#8217;s why she has backpedaled on every single one of these proposals. She has no real values. Everything&#8217;s malleable at a moment&#8217;s notice. So how exactly do you pitch a candidate like that?
The other day in The New York Times, columnist David French came up with a solution. He wrote a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/opinion/harris-trump-conservatives-abortion.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piece entitled</a>, &#8220;To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris.&#8221; And it&#8217;s worth talking about this in some detail, because it&#8217;s going to be a familiar refrain from the Left in the next three months. The idea is that electing Kamala Harris will end Donald Trump&#8217;s political career and allow the Republican Party in four years to get back to what French calls &#8220;Reaganite conservatism.&#8221; 
In other words, don&#8217;t worry about what Harris believes or doesn&#8217;t believe. Vote strategically to take down Donald Trump so that in four years, the party of Ronald Reagan will return.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1421-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h4>
This is an argument that&#8217;s tailor-made to appeal to conservatives with some memory of Reagan, and a very poor understanding of Kamala Harris. But everyone else understands the problem with it: Saving conservatism by voting for Kamala Harris is like saving someone from drowning by chaining a millstone around their neck. A Kamala Harris administration would guarantee that the future of American conservatism would look a lot like &#8220;conservatism&#8221; in Canada or the UK. We&#8217;re already trending in that direction. An administration that censors dissent, criminalizes firearm ownership, and stops enforcing the law would complete our transformation into a one-party, Left-liberal government.
People like David French want that transformation to happen as quickly as possible. And French hopes to convince conservatives to buy into this change by arguing that their preferred political ideology has already been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/opinion/harris-trump-conservatives-abortion.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">replaced</a> by the so-called MAGA movement.
<blockquote>Since the day Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015, the MAGA movement has been engaged in a long-running, slow-rolling ideological and characterological transformation of the Republican Party. At each step, it has pushed Republicans further and further away from Reaganite conservatism. It has divorced Republican voters from any major consideration of character in leadership and all the while it has labeled people who resisted the change as &#8216;traitors.&#8217; What allegiance do you owe a party, a movement or a politician when it or they fundamentally change their ideology and ethos?</blockquote>
The issue here is pretty simple: French&#8217;s assumption is wrong. Trump has not &#8220;fundamentally changed&#8221; conservatism. Many of his positions (immigration in particular) are more conservative than the average Republican politician, especially the average Republican politician before Trump came onto the scene. Even where he has moderated — on abortion and gay marriage for example — he&#8217;s not any more moderate than the average Republican politician. I wish he was less moderate, but it&#8217;s absurd to suggest that some establishment Republican like Tim Scott or whoever would have held the line better on those issues.
French seems to realize this because he immediately moves on to talking about how Donald Trump supposedly lies a lot. He drops the topic of ideology and starts making <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/opinion/harris-trump-conservatives-abortion.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">familiar observations</a> about Trump&#8217;s character.
<blockquote>Let’s take an assertion that should be uncontroversial, especially to a party that often envisions itself as a home for people of faith: Lying is wrong. I’m not naïve; I know that politicians have had poor reputations for honesty since Athens. But I have never seen a human being lie with the intensity and sheer volume of Donald Trump. Even worse, Trump’s lies are contagious. The legal results speak for themselves. A cascade of successful defamation lawsuits demonstrate the severity and pervasiveness of Republican dishonesty.</blockquote>
What&#8217;s not mentioned here is the fact that Harris spent several years lying about Joe Biden&#8217;s mental capacity, or the fact that Tim Walz spent 20 years lying about his service in the National Guard. These are actual falsehoods. They&#8217;re statements of face that can be proven false.
What French is accusing Trump of doing is very different. He&#8217;s saying that Trump was lying by claiming that the 2020 election was &#8220;rigged.&#8221; But this isn&#8217;t a claim that anyone has proven false, or that anyone can prove false. It&#8217;s Trump&#8217;s assessment of what happened to him, and it happens to be a very well-founded assessment. The entire system of elections in this country was changed in a matter of weeks, removing all kinds of safeguards against fraud — ultimately allowing Joe Biden to receive millions more votes than Barack Obama. That followed years of deliberate falsehoods about Russian collusion that never took place, along with lies about &#8220;very fine people&#8221; in Charlottesville and the Hunter Biden laptop and so on. These falsehoods were repeated many times by the Biden-Harris administration. Add then of course there are the millions of illegal aliens who have been shipped into this country over the past few decades. Any reasonable person can conclude that this amounts to an unfair or &#8220;rigged&#8221; political process.
But David French doesn&#8217;t care about those lies. He only cares about Trump&#8217;s response to them. So he continues:
<blockquote>Let’s take another assertion that should be relatively uncontroversial: Political violence and threats of violence have no place in the American democratic process. Yet threats and intimidation follow the MAGA movement like night follows day. Only one party has nominated a man who was indicted for his role in the criminal scheme to steal an American election, a scheme that culminated in a violent political riot.</blockquote>
French then hand-waves away the attempted assassination of Donald Trump last month, as well as the attempted assassinations of Brett Kavanaugh and Steve Scalise. All of those instances of political violence, according to David French, pale in comparison to Donald Trump&#8217;s decision to challenge the results of the 2020 election. That decision, French says, led to a &#8220;violent&#8221; riot in which only Trump supporters were killed. Therefore, Trump is responsible for inciting political violence. 
I&#8217;m not going to recount all of Trump&#8217;s statements on January 6 calling for peaceful protest. Those are well-documented. And it&#8217;s also well-documented that the Left likes to pretend that Trump never made those calls for peaceful protest, which is why the Supreme Court faulted Jack Smith&#8217;s indictment for failing to mention them.
<h4><a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a></h4>
What&#8217;s remarkable about French&#8217;s assertion is that, even if it were true, then he could make a very similar complaint against Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. I&#8217;ve already talked about Tim Walz&#8217;s role in delaying the National Guard response to the riots in Minneapolis. But it&#8217;s actually worse than that. A Minnesota police sergeant testified that Walz ordered the authorities to surrender the police station to the mob. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;I heard the Governor say &#39;Give it up&#39;&quot; -Minneapolis Police Sergeant Anna Hedberg
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz gave orders to allow the Third Precinct to burn, abandoning Minnesota families and police in favor of BLM rioters. <a href="https://t.co/X1NYjKA40p">pic.twitter.com/X1NYjKA40p</a>
&mdash; Clarity (@covid_clarity) <a href="https://twitter.com/covid_clarity/status/1823006950713414121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So the governor of Minnesota whips up a mob of violent thugs. They ransack businesses. They set buildings on fire. They kill people and cause tens of millions of dollars in property damage. And then, in response, the governor tells the authorities to stand down so there can be more carnage. Meanwhile his wife lowers the window to take in the aroma of burning tires. And Kamala Harris gets to work bailing out the perpetrators.
It&#8217;s easy to talk about violence like this in the abstract. So here&#8217;s new footage of what Tim Walz oversaw in Minneapolis. This apparently hasn&#8217;t been widely broadcast until yesterday, when it resurfaced on social media. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A startling new video that has never been seen before by the public from the Minneapolis Riots.
This was filmed on 5/30/2020 at 4:23am in the Phillips Neighborhood according to the video’s metadata.
This is Tim Walz and Kamala Harris’s legacy.<a href="https://t.co/YMqP042Cpm">pic.twitter.com/YMqP042Cpm</a>
&mdash; Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) <a href="https://twitter.com/GrageDustin/status/1822961640372924492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It looks like a war zone. Any competent governor who cared about his city would have done everything in his power to end this destruction. But Tim Walz enabled it.
This is why, whatever criticisms you can bring against Donald Trump for January 6, it doesn&#8217;t make any sense whatsoever to protest Donald Trump by voting for a Harris-Walz ticket. These people aren&#8217;t just liars — they promoted violence that led to the deaths of innocent people all over the country. They bailed out radicals so they could commit more acts of violence. That kind of violence isn&#8217;t suddenly acceptable because it happened outside of the Capitol building.
At best, even if French&#8217;s points were all valid (and they aren&#8217;t) it would be an argument for not voting for Trump. But actively voting for a far-Left Democrat — and doing it in the name of conservatism — is an asinine position. Despicable, even. Trump may not be pro-life enough for my tastes, but the Biden Administration supports abortion until the moment of birth. They are also actively prosecuting pro-lifers. French, the avid pro-lifer, is voting for the regime that is currently throwing pro-life activists in federal prison.
He&#8217;s also backing a government that&#8217;s just proposed &#8220;ethics rules&#8221; and term limits for the Supreme Court, which would obviously be a major step towards ending the independent judiciary in this country. What part of &#8220;Reaganite conservatism&#8221; involves kicking conservative justices off the bench because they fly historic flags outside their beach houses? What conservative principle is that defending? Using pretexts to oust justices who don&#8217;t toe the Left&#8217;s party line is not &#8220;conservative.&#8221; It&#8217;s not what Reagan did, either. It&#8217;s what Reagan&#8217;s enemies did in the Soviet Union.
And for that matter, what exactly is &#8220;conservative&#8221; about abolishing ICE and closing all illegal immigrant detention centers? Does that conserve our borders or our national heritage? No one can ask Kamala Harris about this because she won&#8217;t sit for any hostile interviews. But it&#8217;s on tape. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Open borders Kamala wants to free all criminal illegal immigrants.
Attendee: “I want to know, when you become president, would you be committing to close the immigration detention centers?”
Kamala: “Absolutely, on day one. On day one.” <a href="https://t.co/XLfrhyLpns">pic.twitter.com/XLfrhyLpns</a>
&mdash; Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1823107554710294905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
You can&#8217;t have a functioning country with someone like this in charge. It&#8217;s impossible by definition to maintain our borders when you shut down all border enforcement. And there are many more examples like this. A Harris-Walz administration would mean that more federal resources would be allocated on the basis of race. It would mean vastly more government spending and giveaways to preferred groups, like student loan debt &#8220;relief.&#8221;
None of these ideas are consistent with Reaganism, but people like David French want you to think they are. And they’re now actively campaigning for a candidate who hates this country and its people and wishes to do harm to both. Now, some perspective is important. I&#8217;m not going to claim that this election is the last election we&#8217;ll ever have and we have to win or America is over. Both sides say that about every election. I&#8217;ve heard it for as long as I&#8217;ve been alive. But it is true that a Kamala victory would mean eight years of this current regime. Very likely 12 years. This country has suffered greatly from just four years. Another decade of this would be disastrous.
Every American who considers himself &#8220;conservative&#8221; or Christian has a moral obligation to vote against Kamala Harris. She is an evil person and part of a regime that wants to kill babies, destroy our national sovereignty, indoctrinate our children into an ideology of self-harm and confusion, and in every other sense actively work against everything we claim to stand for.
Whatever you think of Trump — even if you have the most unflattering view of him that a reasonable person could possible have — he is not a part of that agenda. If you are voting for that agenda, you are actively participating in the evil. You are supporting it. You are helping it to gain power. That you are doing it all to get back at Trump, at the expense of our country, just makes you a fool at best. 
This isn&#8217;t about being loyal to Donald Trump or any other politician. It&#8217;s about loving your country enough — and caring enough about your children and their future — to put your feelings about Donald Trump to the side and casting a vote against this regime that has already done incredible harm to this country. And will do a lot more, if we don&#8217;t stop it.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz Campaign Rally in Las Vegas

This So-Called ‘Conservative’ Is Trying To Convince You To Vote For Kamala Harris. Here’s Why That’s An Insane Idea.

This So-Called 'Conservative' Is Trying To Convince You To Vote For Kamala Harris. Here’s Why That’s An Insane Idea.

Kamala Harris

New York Times

Republicans

Tim Walz

The presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Trump may well help decide the election in November; the history of televised presidential debates suggests that their effect can be significant. One factor that makes this debate so unusual is that is  being held far in advance of the presidential election.
The first televised debates occurred in 1960, when Vice President Richard Nixon debated Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy. In the wake of the two parties conventions, Nixon held a six-point lead over Kennedy in most polls. The four debates were held on September 26, October 7, October 13, and October 21.
The first debate was seen by 65 million viewers; Nixon had been campaigning extensively and had <a href="https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/history/debate/kennedynixon/kennedynixonscholarly.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lost 15 pounds</a>. In addition, Nixon refused to wear makeup while Kennedy did, leading to Kennedy looking refreshed while Nixon’s five-o-clock shadow made him look more haggard.
Howard K. Smith, who moderated the first debate, <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/2000/09/22/60-minutes-that-shook-the-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said decades later</a> that television legitimized Kennedy as a candidate.  “One night elevated Kennedy,” he said. “He had been known as a ‘boy senator.’ But the person who came into the studio that night wasn’t a boy. He was a man.”
“60 Minutes” creator Don Hewitt agreed: “When it was all over, I said, ‘My God, we’ve just elected a president of the United States.’ But I also remember saying, ‘I’m not sure we should elect one this way.’ We were just looking at two performers and picking the better performer.”
The next televised presidential debates occurred in 1976 between President Gerald Ford and Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. The three presidential debates (a fourth vice-presidential debate was held between the GOP’s Robert Dole and the Democrat’s Walter Mondale) were held on September 23, October 6, and October 22. Carter <a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1976/index.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> years later, “If it hadn&#8217;t been for the debates, I would have lost. They established me as competent on foreign and domestic affairs and gave the viewers reason to think that Jimmy Carter had something to offer.”
1980 featured only one debate between former California governor Ronald Reagan and President Carter. The first presidential debate was held on September 21, but because independent candidate John Anderson was invited Carter did not participate. After Reagan did quite well, Anderson’s poll numbers plunged. Carter and Reagan debated alone on October 28. Reagan won handily, largely because of him asking whether Americans were better off than they had been four years before and his oft-repeated statement to Carter, “There you go again.” An ABC poll after the debate <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1980/10/30/archives/tv-instant-poll-steals-pastdebate-scene.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> two-thirds of respondents thought Reagan won. Reagan had been running as much as 8% behind Carter before the debate, which occurred one week before the election. He then crushed Carter in the election.
In 2000, George W. Bush debated Al Gore on October 3, 11 and 17. Time Magazine <a href="https://time.com/archive/6927910/the-debate-on-tv-what-happened-to-al-gore-attack-debater/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> of the first debate, “The pundits and the polls agreed: Gore had won the debate. Then he lost: within a week, Bush had opened up a lead in several polls, as voters apparently decided they were tired of Professor Know-It-All.” Bush narrowly won the election.
In 2012, three debates were held between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, on October 3, October 16, and October 22. Romney had been trailing in polls until the first debate, which people thought he won, thus helping him <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/obama-debate-election-2012/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge into the lead</a> in Gallup and Pew polls. But Obama did much better in the second debate, propelling him to victory in the election.
The 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump occurred on September 26, October 9, and October 19, and proved to be a major exception. Clinton was deemed the winner of each debate in virtually every poll. But in the end, Trump won the election.

President Carter and Ronald Reagan Debating

Presidential Debates And How Much They Can Matter

Joe Biden

John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Richard Nixon

In 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan gave a moving speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/101-year-old-d-day-vet-knew-exactly-what-he-was-fighting-for-kick-hitlers-a-out-of-europe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">D-Day invasion</a> on the beaches of Normandy, France — and 40 years later, for the 80th anniversary, President Joe Biden appears to have given at least parts of the same speech.
Radio host and Outkick founder Clay Travis noticed the similarities and share video of the two speeches side by side. &#8220;Joe Biden essentially plagiarized Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 speech at Pointe du Hoc today in Normandy. Watch these clips side by side. Wow,&#8221; he commented.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Joe Biden essentially plagiarized Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 speech at Pointe du Hoc today in Normandy. Watch these clips side by side. Wow: <a href="https://t.co/jeGgTS2Nnm">pic.twitter.com/jeGgTS2Nnm</a>
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1799127244667080763?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
What followed was a series of clips showing Biden&#8217;s remarks and then Reagan&#8217;s.
Biden: &#8220;At last the hour had come. Dawn. The 6th of June, 1944.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;At dawn, the morning of the 6th of June 1944.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;225 American Rangers arrived by ship, jumped into the waves, and stormed the beach.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;Gunfire rained above them, but still they kept coming. Nazi grenades thrown from above exploded against the cliffs, but still they kept coming.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Reagan: &#8220;The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;They launched their ladders, ropes, and grappling hooks, and they began to climb.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and they began to pull themselves up.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;When the Nazis cut their ladders, the Rangers used their ropes. When the Nazis cut the ropes, the Rangers used their hands.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;And inch by inch, foot by foot, yard by yard, the Rangers clawed — literally clawed — their way up this mighty precipice until at last they reached the top.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top.&#8221;
Biden: &#8220;They breached this Atlantic wall, and they turned with that one effort, the tide of the war that began to save the world.&#8221;
Reagan: &#8220;And in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe.&#8221;
Several critics pointed out that when it came to plagiarism, a cribbed D-Day speech would not be Biden&#8217;s first rodeo.
&#8220;Joe Biden: Once a plagiarist, always a plagiarist,&#8221; Steve Guest posted, noting that a previous plagiarism scandal had ultimately forced Biden out of contention in the 1988 Democratic presidential primary.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Joe Biden: Once a plagiarist, always a plagiarist. <a href="https://t.co/dT1ekc1oU5">https://t.co/dT1ekc1oU5</a> <a href="https://t.co/vuWEw9aRB7">pic.twitter.com/vuWEw9aRB7</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1799153102563496213?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Why would he do this? Why invite a direct comparison with Reagan with whom no president could ever compete in telling this story, much less one as inarticulate as Biden?&#8221; Marc Thiessen added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Why would he do this? Why invite a direct comparison with Reagan with whom no president could ever compete in telling this story m, much less one as inarticulate as Biden? <a href="https://t.co/YwsFWabgtb">https://t.co/YwsFWabgtb</a>
— Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱 (@marcthiessen) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcthiessen/status/1799150328383721672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
&#8220;If only there was a history of plagiarism with Biden, then it might represent a pattern. Oh wait…&#8221; another posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
If only there was a history of plagiarism with Biden, then it might represent a pattern.
Oh wait… <a href="https://t.co/J0FiOyhkCd">https://t.co/J0FiOyhkCd</a>
— IT Guy (@ITGuy1959) <a href="https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1799137667323773379?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
&#8220;&#8216;Hey AI. Write me a speech about Normandy,'&#8221; the U.S. Oil and Gas Association posted. &#8220;Tell us your comms team doesn&#8217;t understand that things happened prior to 2018 when they graduated from college without telling us that they don&#8217;t understand that things happened prior to 2018 when they graduated from college &#8230;&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;Hey AI. Write me a speech about Normandy.&#8221;
Tell us your comms team doesn&#8217;t understand that things happened prior to 2018 when they graduated from college without telling us that they don&#8217;t understand that things happened prior to 2018 when they graduated from college&#8230;. <a href="https://t.co/yvG7EInZRE">https://t.co/yvG7EInZRE</a>
— US Oil &amp; Gas Association (@US_OGA) <a href="https://twitter.com/US_OGA/status/1799153524439392716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
But while the speech patterns were very similar — a fact that Biden&#8217;s defenders claimed was simply because both presidents were describing the same events — former Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) noted a marked difference between the demeanor of the two men. Reagan, 73 at the time he gave the 40th anniversary speech, appeared to be in good health as he stood tall and saluted the veterans present that day. Biden, in contrast, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-raises-eyebrows-at-d-day-ceremony-gets-escorted-away-as-macron-greets-veterans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raised eyebrows</a> when he appeared unsure whether he was supposed to sit or stand — and was then escorted from the ceremonies while French President Emmanuel Macron remained behind, speaking with the veterans and guests.
&#8220;What a difference between President Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D-Day and President Joe Biden on the 80th anniversary of D-day,&#8221; Walker said, sharing side-by-side photos of the two presidents.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
What a difference between President Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D-Day and President Joe Biden on the 80th anniversary of D-day. <a href="https://t.co/i4EWPLwjl4">pic.twitter.com/i4EWPLwjl4</a>
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/1799127634439287007?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2024</a></blockquote>

Menu