Chicago Way w/John Kass: What the FCC’s Carr got wrong about Jimmy Kimmel

Cancelling plans because your knees hurt? Nope, not anymore. Get to Joint Relief Institute. Safe, fast, immediate pain relief, covered by Medicare. Call 70888-000000 as in zero pain. And where are you, as Charlie Kirk is being remembered or turned into a symbol of hate by some and of love by others? Where are you? As the nation goes into spasm, the people on both sides, the left and the right fight, as they hold Charlie Kirk above them as if you're as a martyr and you're in darkness and you're looking for the light. You're on the Chicago Way podcast. on WGN Plus. So this is a guy who lives high on the hog and he has this Tammany Hall style attitude to power. And it is, it's the Chicago Way. Absolutely. The Chicago Way is a deep cultural. Phenomenon. It's the Chicago Way. The Chicago Way. That's the focus. In a tower by the river, there lived a man. There was a man who took a stand with pen and paper in his hand. Defeating foes in every ward with a pen more mighty than the sword. No escape from his ink lasso in a tower by the river. Castle. Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife. You pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital. You send one of his to the morgue. That's the shipwagon.

Now, as promised, Dan Proft, talk show host, extraordinaire, blogger, extraordinaire, writer, extraordinaire. Welcome to the Chicago Way again, my friend. Thank you, John. It is me, the extraordinary Dan. Well, it was extraordinary to see, to listen to your program this week, and listen to you talk about Jimmy Kimmel and the... FCC chairman, Brendan Carr. And I really like the take you had on this, and I want you to tell our listeners if they hadn't already heard it, because I think your approach to this is what makes you, in my mind, I don't want to sound like a fan boy, but I am the best talk show host in Chicago, bar none. Well, I mean, there's a lot of angles to this. I think, Well, first of all, I mean, just all the people running around, you know, invoking the First Amendment, most of whom have no respect for the First Amendment and were happy to see people silence during COVID or the George Floyd riots or a host of any other, anything else that deviates from the leftist orthodoxy. They're happy to see people silenced, fired and all that. So, I mean, they have no standing. But just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean that I want to be a hypocrite or that we conservative should be hypocrites. So just separate, but separating out the First Amendment issue. You know, the First Amendment doesn't protect people from being fired from their jobs. It is a restraint on government as it claims to free expression. So people need to understand that. I mean, yes, you have some free speech rights, generally speaking, that relate to in a school environment, to some extent, in a corporate environment. But if people... feel like if an employer, I should say not people, if an employer feels like you're doing damage to their brand or to their profitability, then those are terminable offenses in the real world. That's how it works, even if your business is to talk for a living. And maybe especially if your business is to talk for a living or to entertain for a living. So that's just the first thing, just sort of clear some of the silliness that's out there so you can get to some of the substantive issues because that's... Because invoking the First Amendment is not a substantive issue with respect to Jimmy Kimmel. But you did bring up what I thought was important. You took, if not the side of the odious Jimmy Kimmel. You basically discussed it that you were unhappy with Brendan Carr bringing this issue up in the capacity of his federal leverage. And I thought that that whole episode where he insinuates federal power in order to score political points doesn't do our side, meaning our cause, the conservative side.

or President Trump really any favors. Right. Well, this is where you get into some nuance. So first, you have to understand that the FCC regulates broadcast, licensed. operators, content producers. It does not regulate podcasters like a John Cass. It doesn't regulate the internet. It doesn't regulate cable news. Yes. So we're talking about, you know, as contingent and getting a license, and I know this, and you know this, John from being in radio, you know this from radio. So I'm FCC regulated, Salem Media, who I work for is FCC regulated. We have licenses and those licenses. come with certain stipulations as a condition of being licensed by the FCC for the public to access the public wavelength. And if you run afoul, then you run into trouble. So the first of it is to understand this, this is a specific regulatory body for specific communication channel. It is not expansive across every communication channel that is out there. That's important because. the FCC is not silencing America in one direction or the other ever. Right. So it's number one. Number two is with respect to what Brendan Carr did, I did have a problem with it when he went on Benny Johnson podcast and basically said there's this, you know, public interest provision in the FCC license. And it's. Basically, it's laid dormant for a while and we think it needs to be reanimated. And, you know, this may be an example of where it should be reanimated. So if you don't have... FCC license holders leveraging their power as a communication channel with content providers, then this is where the FCC may have to step in. And so they never, FCC never took any action, but I mean, but, but, you know, as I said on my show, when you sort of, um, You didn't put your finger on the scale, but you're holding your finger over the scale saying, don't make me do this. You know, that's sort of the same thing. I'm not touching you. Yeah, I'm not touching you, exactly. But so it is so, so that was the problem. I think if Brendan Carr would have just explained this without intimating that this is a potential area for FCC action, because it really. It really wasn't. I mean, Jimmy Kimmel said something that was factually incorrect, which he does all the time. Jimmy Kimmel is not acting in the interest of the, or is not producing content that represents the wide swath of opinion within the universe that broadcasts his show. Well, that happens every night. So, you know, I don't know.

how this was a distinctive event that should have precipitated sort of FCC open public conversation about regulatory action. Now, one other point. Then he came on, Brendan Carr did and did an extended interview with David Faber on CNBC the next day on Thursday. And I thought that was much more helpful because he distinguished between broadcast media and other media. He basically said what we see here is what the Trump administration has sort of rebalance the marketplace, making it okay for. the owners of network affiliates like Sinclair or like NextStar to to exercise power against a Disney, the content provided, the company that produces Jimmy Kimmel, to say, no, no, this is not this is the sort of thing that we want to pipe through our channels. And so. I thought that was interesting because it really factors in to say, you know, one thing you need to remember in this multivariate equation of how this decision was made to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, maybe, maybe permanently, but certainly indefinitely, is, you know, the leadership, the corporate leadership of Next Star, the corporate leadership of Sinclair. they don't necessarily share the philosophical view on the world that Disney's corporate leadership does or that ABC News's corporate leadership does. And, you know, they get to have a say too. And so this is so much more about this corporate dynamic. And it should have been allowed to play out without Brendan Carr insinuating himself. But it's so much more about this. about Next Star's interest in a merger with Tegna, which is a $6 billion deal, and they're thinking about that for certain. There's a lot of dynamics here. And most of them do not have to do with sort of free speech or even regulation or free speech. But the idea that you're going to get into the business of saying something is violative, the FCC is, I should say, something is violative of FCC strictures and open to regulatory action because it's, overly partisan or because it's misinformation or because it's demonstrably false. I mean, you just don't want the FCC operating as some sort of commissar making those determinations because as we've seen, those determinations become inherently political and they will swing widely from one administration to the other. And that really does run afoul of our free speech norms, even if it doesn't. technically the First Amendment. And for full disclosure, Nextar, you know, is where this podcast lives is on WGN's digital space and NextR as a parent company there. So to get that out of the way. But, Dan, you know, the idea of the First Amendment piece and the pressure.

What do you factor in, you know, kind of the post-Stephen Colbert Trump commentary on late night? And then this next star proposed merger that has to have federal, you know, approval. And you mix it together. Then they come out on this kind of tepid. Jimmy Kimmel, you know, he didn't really do anything. He said it wasn't like he was doing anything egregious in what he said. It was just stupid, probably at best. Do you feel that that kind of leans into the First Amendment issue where they're being, you know, leverage or pressured saying, well, they would want us to do this, so let's do it. because we want this, you know, merger to go through. Doesn't that feel a little like we're getting into the government is picking winners and losers? And I know that's the thing. But, I mean, to me, that was kind of the part where I felt like, ah, I hate when this happens. But I know it's the business. And I know that's how business works. But at the end of the day, I just feel like it's one step closer towards your government controlling speech. Well. I would say what Jimmy Kimmel said is knowing, I mean, knowing he knew or he should have known that what he said was false. And he did it for political reasons to say that the Charlie Kirk's assassin was Maga. You know, it's, it's, it really is reprehensible what he said. But, but, you know, but again, he says things that are reprehensible all the time. Right. So. What I would say about the idea that Next Star was singing for its supper for this merger that they want to go through. I don't know if that's the case or not. I don't know if they would have behaved any differently or not. But Brendan Carr signaling the prospect of regulation sort of muddies the water. And so you don't know. It's just like people say, well, well, you know. They were going to move on Jimmy Kim Well anyway or something like this or this was the opportunity because his show is unprofitable, which is in some dispute. I don't know if it is or isn't. And this was just not doing. Maybe that's part of it too. Maybe Next star and Sinclair were waiting and looking for a reason and this provided it. But the problem is he said what he said on Monday and then Tuesday. Yeah. And then, and there was no action taken. And immediately after, just about immediately after Brendan Carr's statement on that podcast, then all of a sudden, Sinclair, excuse me, next star moves and then Sinclair after them on Kimmel. So the timing looks really bad. And, and it looks like they were maybe thinking about moving. And Brendan Carr's statements made it a lot easier for them to move. And you don't, and yeah, and that's a, that's a bad look. Yeah. And I guess you're right there because, I mean, like, the one thing, them putting pressure, we're saying, hey, we want to make this, this merger growth or singing for your supper is said, you know, to me, it gives me the feel, you know, an ick feeling. But then this kind of seals a deal. You're like, oh, what the hell, guys? Like, what are you doing here? I get that. Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm sure they, you know, look, that they're, they're in contact with the.

with the FCC throughout this entire process of a merger, which was a complicated deal. And so it wasn't like they weren't in communication and they're not trying to, you know, provide, to find a glide path for this merger to go through and so on and so forth. So they're going to be incentivized to move in the direction of the administration. And it wouldn't have taken Brendan Carr saying anything to probably have them move at some point or certainly say something at some point once this became a thing. But, yeah, it's like I said, it's just, it was unfortunate. And I like Brendan Carr a lot. I've had him on my show. I think he's a very smart guy. I think he has great regard for the First Amendment and our freedoms as in trying to the Bill of Rights. But I just thought that was a mistake on his part to even open the prospect of regulatory action at the point in which he did. And I'm sure he's intelligent enough to understand that about himself and what he said. And he's moving on, and I guess so will we. We're recording on Saturday, and I'm watching West Ham United Battle Crystal Palace. That's for Dan. I don't understand what you just said. It's soccer day. With over three decades of serving up streetwise insight and local perspective on page two. The voice of John Cass has a home at Johncastnews. A place where common sense is still served daily. Listen up. You like being treated as a chumbalone, as a fool, sitting on a stool, smiling wanly at the sky? Don't be a chumbalone and subscribe at johncastnews.com. I'm John Cass. 40 years, a newspaper man in Chicago. I won't name the place. It's just the paper now. But I'm asking you to join me so you can get... A decent cup of common sense, at least. You're not going to get it from the media. It's time that you join the frontier of independent journalism at johncastnews. Don't get caught in the parade of chumbalones. Traditional media, mainstream media like the paper. They're all in on it. They think you're stupid. You know what they think? They think you're a chumbullone. Subscribe at johncastnews.com now for only $50 a year and become a member of the no chumbalone zone. Um, because we're... recording on Saturday. The Kirk funeral service, I guess, will be held Sunday. And I don't know what's going to happen there, but I do know that I don't think Governor J.B. Pritzker will be a lead speaker there. And I don't think he'll be weeping. What do you think of both of you? What do you think of J.B. Pritzker's inference that he never said anything. about the Nazis, never compared Republicans to Nazis. I don't know why he speaks in those terms when there is tape of everything he said. Completely false. I have never called Republicans Nazis. I'm watching with a foreboding dread what is happening in our country right now. If you think I'm overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this. It took the Nazis one month, three weeks.

two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. And all I'm saying is that when the five alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control. Well, yeah, of course he did those things. He says all kinds of obnoxious things, you know, demagogic. over the top things. Right. He's a completely unsurious person. He is such a, he's really such just a big vanilla, vacuous windbag that he has to try to sort of. you know, invent an edge for these times to appeal to the ravenous base of his new Marxist party. And I think that's what he's trying to do when he does those things. But I mean, again, in his most recent state of the state address this past winter, he spent... About three or four minutes comparing Republicans to the Nazis and the Trump administration to the rise of the Third Reich. Right. And he does it routinely. You know, on the stump in New Hampshire trying to position himself for 2028 and running for president. He says all sorts of intempered things, but he does it like Dick Durbin did in a room temperature tone of voice. And so somehow he gets away with it. And I think a lot of people, a lot of these politicians. feel like they can get away with complete 180s without any to acknowledge they are doing a 180 or say things say they didn't say things they most obviously said just because you know who's there to fact check them you are you are and i am but uh the chicago press corps isn't the springfield press court isn't the dc press corps isn't because you know they'll cover for their fellow travelers although it was interesting that even the Washington Post could not stomach, and I do mean stomach, J.B. Pritzker. Even they could not stomach J.B. Pritzker when he invoked Trump in his remarks after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Even the Washington Post had to call what he said in the immediacy of Charlie Kirk's assassination, disgraceful. And disgraceful is basically... a one-word summation of J.B. Pritzker's time in public life. But the difference is that, or years ago...

There were newspapers that would hold politicians to account. If John Cass or Dan Proff or Jeff Carlin said A or B on Monday and then switched our tone on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Tribune and sometimes would be there to announce it and examine it. Because, number one, that kind of story, he said this on Monday. He said this on Tuesday. He said that on Wednesday is an easy story to write. It doesn't require a lot of brain power. It doesn't require much. analysis or investment, and it's right there for you as a reporter, and that it bothers me and offends me that I had to, since I was writing about J.B. Pritzker, J.B. Pritzker the coward for my Sunday column, I went back and looked through the Sun times in the Tribune looking for. commentary or news reports about his flip-flopping. And you know what? I didn't find them. Well, even more disgraceful than his saying he didn't say things he said is what he actually said. Right. And then what he actually says, like his fellow travelers say, is in the wake of somebody who commits an act of political violence. You know, we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to be more civil. We need to have constructive dialogue. We need to understand when, you know, we can disagree without hating one another. You get all of those. you know, throw pillow aphorisms from these people at the same time. And then they turn around. Squishy. And this guy's a Nazi. And it's the end of our democracy. And it's the third break. And everything is fascist. And everything is authoritarian. And everything is he's literally killing people. I mean, they're just, they're just, they're just, they're just so. dishonest and disgraceful. They're just repugnant human beings based on the conduct that they display. Repugnant human beings. They are repulsive and they need to be spoken with in those stark terms, I think. Not just like, oh, it's just a politician and this is what they do. I'm so sick of listening to that. No, it's not just that that's just what politicians do. Not every politician is like that. And even if a majority are like that, then the majority of them should be discarded. And those who don't do that should be elevated. So make better choices and look for better options. Well, that's the point. What is the effect of a media that doesn't call that out and the people that don't seem to be upset? I mean, I've constantly compared them in a way, the voters of Illinois to...

cattle being prodded, you know, pushed through the livestock shoots on the way to the slaughterhouse. They've been taxed to death and lied to repeatedly over the decades. What is the effect of that type of... constant barrage of unreality from the media? Well, I think it has multiple effects. One effect is to animate people who are mentally unstable. Yes. And the other is to demoralize people who are not. And it's the demoralization piece that really speaks to the electorate. They just get... You know, it's just like I can't, I can't, I can't, the, the responses, I can't even listen to this anymore. If this is ridiculous, I don't want any part of this arena. I don't want to spend my life having to, to tell people I'm not a Nazi. How silly is that? And so they just retreat from the arena, retreat from participation. And that's part of the point, too. So, I mean, I think it is, I think it's twofold. And I think both benefit the left until unless people on the right. get hep to what they're doing and respond sensibly and accordingly, which is to participate rather than to retreat. But it's it's both demon, the demonization both produces the hysterics on the left to shout everybody they can down. and shame everybody they can into non-participation. Dan, you're, I mean, even a political persona and in the machine, not, you know, the combine machine, but just the phalanx as it is, helping to try to raise up people in different arenas, supporting candidates, that kind of thing. You kind of mentioned that we've got these leaders, these politicians who do this double talk and don't. speak truthfully or just say whatever they think is going to get them, score them points. How do we get people who don't think like that or who are serious into the arena to force, you know, reasonable conversations and debate about important things because it feels like, and you know, Jerry Manning's is certainly a cause of this, that it's whoever's the loudest idiot in the, in a primary often wins. Well, I mean, I think there are people that are in the arena that fit the bill. I mean, that fit both of your descriptions, the good one and the bad one. Sure. But I think there are people that fit the bill that you're describing the good one in terms of being, you know, thoughtful and rational and considered and substantive. So more of those people have to win. Yeah. I mean, the only way you encourage more people who fit that description into the arena is if they see people like them finding victory.

If they see people like them just being demonized and, you know, obliterated politically, then it's pretty discouraging to say, well, why should I, you know, be the next one up to be cannon fodder? Yeah. So I think that's, I really do. And I don't think, you know, it's like I, I just think especially in areas like, say, Chicago and Illinois where people on the center right. and conservatives are demoralized. You need to see somebody break through and show that it can be done and that the region and the state are not completely lost, and there's still a majority of people in the region and the state who do have the capacity for rational thought and do have the capacity to hold bad actors in public office accountable. You need to see that occurrence happen, and it hasn't happened. in a long time, maybe since Peter Fitzgerald. It really hasn't. Yeah. I don't think the Republican Party has recovered from Bruce Rauner and enacting sanctuary city policies on the state and the abortion betrayal. I think taxpayer-funded abortion, all that devastated and gutted the Republican Party, I think. And now we have another candidate who's, I guess, offering himself up, our friend Ted de Browski. How do you think he's doing? And how can he defeat J.B. Pritzker? Well, I think, I think Ted is one of those people that fits the description that Jeff offered. So it's another opportunity for the state of Illinois. Another opportunity for the Republican Party to nominate the right person, another opportunity for the state of Illinois to elect the right person to governor. So we'll see. I think. I mean, Ted has a lot of good attributes. I mean, I'm supporting him. I said it on the air, but I'll say here. Yeah, me too. I'm Ted. And I think, look, he's he's whipsmart. He's had a private career in banking and he's devoted the last 15 years of his life to public policy analysis and advocacy. He knows all of the issues in a way that few in the state, including an elective office, do. Few, if any, frankly. And he is somebody who is not of the system, but he understands the system because of the last 15 years of experience, which is important, something that Bruce Runner didn't have. He didn't understand the system. So he didn't understand why the opportunities were. He also is, you know, I keep using the phrase that George Will used to describe Mitch Daniels before Mitch Daniels became this sort of iconic figure in Indiana politics. which is, you know, one of the hits on Mitch Daniels when he first ran for governor in Indiana was, you know, he's sort of this diminutive guy and he's sort of boring. There's no, he's not somebody who is firing brimstone. He's not a rah-rah guy.

And George Will said, Mitch Jenios has the charisma of competence. And that's what Debrowski has. He has the charisma of competence. And competence is something that's been sorely lacking in Illinois across both parties for multiple generations, at least. And so... So, yeah, so Ted Ted is not a fire and brimstone guy. He is not necessarily a raw, raw guy, but he is measured and thoughtful and knowledgeable and competent. So if those qualities have any appeal to you, which maybe they don't. Yeah, it's a tall order. Yeah, right. When I was growing up, those qualities used to mean something. Then Ted is your guy. So we'll see. What do you see, obviously going up against J.B. Pritzker, he's going to be against the, you know, state-run media, as John would say. What do you see his troubles in the primary, going up against like a Bailey slash Del Mar kind of head to head? Because he is that type of guy who likes to go out there and speaking about Bailey. You will just kind of say whatever he gets to get points, it seems. And Ted's not going to have. seemingly fall into that trap. What do you think are going to be his hurdles to overcome that? Well, I mean, Bailey just has residual name ID from having run for governor in 2022 and then run for Congress in 2024 in that primary. He lost to Mike Boss. So that, you know, enhances his name ID in Southern Illinois in that district as well. So, you know, and Ted starts out as a virtual unknown except for, you know, walks like us, you know, in the political arena. So, you know, to some extent, it's the resources to generate the awareness and the name ID so that people know exactly what the choice is. That's, that's his biggest challenge. I think if the resources are there. And Ted does the job that he always does in articulating the issues, then I think he'll be in a strong position. But if they're not there, then, you know, he could have a problem with Bailey just because of residual name ID. And of course, I supported Bailey in 2022. I ran an independent PAC that independent expenditure back that's part of him in the primary and the general. And, you know, I liked Darren when he was a state senator. I actually supported him in his first run for state rep against an incumbent who had voted for the Ronor tax increase. And our support, outside support, was the reason he won. and was, you know, and then was on the political scene. And I think, I think Darren is authentic in terms of what he believes. Yeah. I don't have anything negative to say about him from a personal perspective. But as a candidate, you know, especially at the statewide level, we saw it in 2022 and it was very frustrating being on the outside and not being able to sort of manage him since I was running an IEPAC. I couldn't communicate with the campaign. But very undisciplined, a lot of mistakes.

didn't understand the market positioning that was required to be successful in the suburbs and how to speak to suburban voters in Chicago. And that's why his candidacy was such a disappointment where he was close, despite all of his missteps. He was actually close in the fall of 2022 to produce within three points to be specific. And I know from the polling I did. And so what people were saying in 2022 is, look, and he was like plus 14 among independents. Yeah. So what people were saying was, look, I'm not a huge, like, J.B. Pritzker started my default position. I'm not a huge fan of him. But I'm willing to consider an alternative. So that was, that's how he got. So it's like, okay, I don't know this guy. So I'm going to keep an open mind, especially the independence, like I'm going to keep an open mind. I don't like J.B. Pritzker. I'm looking for an alternative. But when they really started to focus in. Darren didn't give them any reason to vote for him. And that's when everybody sort of fled back to their default position and J.B. Pritzker stretched out the race. So there's an opportunity there against Pritzky. I know it doesn't seem like that to most people looking at it from the outside. But there's an opportunity there to defeat J.B. Pritzker in 2022. And it was missed because Darren Bailey was a very poor candidate from a messaging and marketing perspective. And one would suspect that after four more years of J.B. Pritzker, the additional fatigue, the, I think many missteps that he's made that make him particularly vulnerable, the fact that he has an eye towards the presidency and Illinois is just a way station. I think there's a real opportunity there. And I think Ted would be a nice. match up from a compare-contrast perspective and certainly would be a much more message discipline than Darren Bailey was. And that's why I think he's the play. But is he vicious enough? Because we both know, all three of us know Ted. He's a decent man. But to get past J.B. Pritzker, you have to display some viciousness or something like that, I guess the dog in the fight. And I don't know if he has that. Does he? I don't think you have to be vicious. I think you have to be tenacious. Okay. And I think Ted has the tenacity. And one of the things I like about him is that there's not going to be a viciousness. That's not who he is. And that's okay because, you know what, I think a lot of these gooey suburban voters are tired. You know, I think a lot of people are tired of the viciousness. I also think that, you know, viciousness from a conservative scares a lot of these gooey suburban voters.

So he could be tenacious without being vicious. I think that's exactly the right position. And I think that fits Ted's personality. And that was probably Bailey's, and you mentioned it, but Bailey's downfall is that he leaned into more of the... only for lack of a better term, the Trumpian style, which I don't think plays super well among the gooey suburbanites. But you should talk about resources. How does Ted draw resources from outside the state? Because it sounds like that's going to be a big need for him to get his message out there because he's clearly underfunded compared to the oligarch and J.B. Pritzker. Where do you think he goes with that? Or how does he... overcome that? Well, you know, I think there may need to be out-of-state resources. It depends. There's still a lot of money in Illinois. I mean, Ted started the race pretty good. I think he's got about a million dollars on hand in terms of money raised, which is certainly better than anybody else in the race. But J.B. Pritzker spent 300, has spent at least $350 million of his own money to climb the... the perch to sit on the top rock, as it were, of Illinois politics. And who can even begin to approach that? Or is that a, is that a, is that a liability? Well, I don't know, I don't know if it's a liability. Maybe a, I mean, on balance, it's certainly not liability to have more money than less. I mean, it's, oh, spending so much money, yeah, the people don't care. But I would say this, I would say, you know, first, you know, at some point, As I want to say, there is not enough money in the world to sell manure-smelling air freight, which is what J.B. Pritzker is selling. So it's really sort of like, can you get to a threshold that ensures he gets his message out and that people are clear on the choice before them? And I think he gets there. I think if he wins the primary and he proves up to be. within striking distance of J.B. Pritzker, you know, as the summer, as next summer wears on into the early fall. I think the resources will come primarily from Illinois. Maybe if he's really doing well, maybe you would get the RGA, the Republican Governors Association, to come in as well. You know, that's all based on performance and based on how competitive you can make the race. But I think there's a good chance that Ted could be. in a position to generate the necessary resources from the deep pockets on the Republican side. And really in a way that maybe other candidates in the past haven't. I mean, I think he can generate support from some of the establishment Republican donors who were not particularly enthralled with Darren Bailey, as well as conservative mega donors like Dick Euline. I think if he is able to get through the primary and keep it competitive. then I think he's going to be able to generate a lot more financial support than people might think. And the only reason I brought up the outside Illinois money thing is because I feel like that this is one of those cherry-picked races that could be very big for the conservative movement if you could take that seat, you know, take the governor's seat. Because because J.B. Pritzker has made it such a voice for himself and made it, you know, if he's going to be some sort of.

candidate who runs against whoever the next presidential candidate is or whatever it is. I mean, you could nip that in the bud now. And he's so weak in his everything because he's done so much. It just doesn't make any sense. And he lies. And he, you know, he's just a rich guy. And he's soft. I feel like it should be. almost an all hands on deck kind of thing because where other race out there is that kind of that important or could be that important is for the movement as a general. Am I wrong? Well, I mean, you know, there's a lot of governor's races out there. There's a lot of congressional races out there. You know, there's a lot of donors want to see their resources go for highest best use in terms of helping to win races that are winnable. And a lot of donors, particularly in Various states want to focus on their states, which makes sense too. You know, if I'm in California and a Republican donor, I want to see Steve Hilton get to a runoff with Gavin Newsom, and I want to see Steve Hilton turn that into a competitive race and at least damage if he can't defeat Gavin Newsom. That's important, too, as, you know, they talk about another presidential candidate. Yeah. Just for example. So, you know, there's just, there's always a lot of races out there. There's always a competition for resources. You're right in the sense that taking out not just J.B. Pritzker's presidential ambitions, because I'm not sure there's too many people really afraid of his presidential. Sure. But taking out his money and striking a blow for common sense conservatism in Illinois. You know, those are, yeah, those would be huge feathers in the cap. but you've got to get to a point where there is credibility that that is possible. So we're a long way from that at this point. Well, it'll be fun. It might be fun. It could be some other ones to do, but. Well, yeah, from our walkers perspective, yeah. Before we go. Crime is an issue. I mean, I think it's an issue. Safety Act and so forth on all the nonsense that J.B. Pritzker has supported, his support of Tony Preckwinkle, mutual endorsements. Tony Preck Winkle has done more to destroy the Cook County suburbs than any human being. Here's what I would say. You're talking about the governor's race? Yes. Here's what I would say. Right now, honestly. I think, and especially with what we were talking about before, with the things that J.B. Pritzker has said, in addition to what they've done, the things that Brandon Johnson and Tony Prenquicle have said in addition to what they've done. I mean, there are some just amazing, amazing statements. Like that last bit from Johnson about law enforcement as a cult or some nonsense like that. Law enforcement is a sickness. I get so sick and tired. of people in this country and in this city that believes that the only thing that you can offer black people and poor people is jails, incarceration, incarceration, and police officers. Dr. King said this right here in Chicago, the National Conference on New Politics. What did he say? He said militarism is a sickness.

I am trying to eradicate the sickness from this city and from this country. The fact of the matter is we are driving violence down on this city, and we're using every single resource that's available to us. Jails and incarceration and law enforcement is a sickness that has not led to safe communities. I'm going to work hard every single day to protect the people who are caught up in violence in this city. Guess why? You want to know why? Because the vast majority of them look like me. He's like the judge in the natural losing as a sickness. And then Robert Redford stands up and walks out. That's what I was feeling like doing when I was listening. In the dark, yeah. But here's what I would say right now. I mean, I think there's some gradations on this. But I really think I would run a campaign. that's focused sort of on the macro level. I think sometimes we get too far into the weeds on some, we think we have to be very parochial in our messaging at the state level and talk about, you know, whatever, the marginal state income tax rate. I would focus completely on who they say they are and who they've proven to be and who they say we are and who we have proven to be. And I mean that across the range of issues, across crime and domestic crime, imported crime, so immigration policy as well. Right. And generally speaking, as per the Charlie Kirk assassination, the belief that the use of political violence. is a justifiable means to political ends. You know, the people kicking over Charlie Kirk memorials versus the college students having candlelight vigils and singing, God bless America. I mean, the contrast between the way that the radical left, which is the animated base of that party, and common sense conservatives behave across the range of issues, not just the positions they take, but how they comport themselves with their fellow man. I think that's the fundamental issue. They say they're the saviors of democracy. Is that what this looks like? Is their behavior? Is that what this looks like to you? They say we're... you know, authoritarians that we're a threat to democracy is, is that what this looks like to you? So make your choice. Because it seems to me like if we can't win a choice as straightforward and stark as that, then the American experiment is in its final days regardless. So I think we really need to sort of funnel all of these issues into this larger sort of fundamental question about who you want to be recorded as having stood with in these times and on these matters.

that are salient in these times. That's the way I would go. That's the way I'm thinking about it right now. That could change, but that's the way I'm thinking about it. Well, I like the idea. I mean, I think simplicity is important, and plus it puts the voter on the side. What side do you want to be on? You want to be on the side of decency or not? Yeah. I like it. Dan, that's why you're... you're good at what you do. So what's next for you in the career mode? Because I don't want you to, I probably should have opened up with this, but now that Charlie Kirk is gone and there's a lot of hagiography about him, I don't see many people out there in the space that I could deal with people who, you know, who would be argumentative and who are true believers balancing both, except I think you can do it. I'm not saying that you're the next Charlie Kirk, for God's sake, but I think you're in the next space because I don't see anyone else. who can engage the listeners and the people, the audience, and discuss all sides of an issue with integrity. I see you in that space. Am I wrong? Well, I appreciate that. And you asked what, what's next to my career? I'm looking for one. So if you have any ideas on what I could do as a career, please do let me know. I think being a soccer commentator is out. Yeah, probably so. But there's a whole opening on ABC News for late night. I don't know if you... Yeah. Take my wife, please. Hey, you. That would probably go about as well as Chevy Chase's late night show. Oh, God, that was bad. That was bad. Dan, it's always going to talk to you. I just, you know, having work together and... I, just forever and just being, seeing the world change from when it was, you know, hate Saturdays with Bruce World to where we are now is just, I could not have called any of this, seen any of this coming, you may have, but not me. No, not me. But before we cut you loose, I know we're cutting early on a Saturday, and it's what's on the docket today? I'm swimming some golf and maybe a fine meal. And if so, what, what do you have in today? Yeah, I actually, I actually get to play with all the descendants of the Mayflower Voyagers at Indian Hall today. So I'm going to be, I'm going to be like. I'm going to be like Al Servic out at Indian Hill today. But they're letting me on the course, even though I'm just a Catholic kid from Wheaton. So, no, it's actually, I've played there before. It's actually, they're very nice, but it is fun to caricature them. So, no, I get to play Indian Hill, which is always fun. I get to have the Haver Camp House pointed out to me and talk about Caddyshack and the Murray Brothers. So we'll have a good time. Excellent.

Excellent. We always look for one other thing for me. I'm looking for a meal. You know, Dan Sullivan had a long day. And he's looking for a good meal. What is, what's his choice? What's, what are you doing? Steak, T. Bone. What are you? Pot roast. Don't go duck La Roche because we already tried it and had a tip to you for that. Yeah, Leinomont is great. Leinomont, yeah. But what about a normal place that most people, you know? That's highfalutin crap. Yeah. How about the veal melanase at victory in Elmhurst? Okay, we'll try that. Yeah, all right. As you and, like I could see, you know, actually you and Carlin, John, could do like the trip kind of that type of movie. You know, have you ever seen that with Steve Coogan and Rob Dryden? Oh, the road trip thing? It's called The Trip. Uh-huh. Rob Biden and Steve Coogan, who used to be sort of like a comedy duo and then this acting career launch. The first one is the best, but that it was so successful they did. I think two more, and then at least the first two are really funny. But, yeah, you and you and Jeff should watch the trip together and then see if that's not something you want to do as a little bit of a side product. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you very much, Dan. Thanks, Dan. Thanks, guys. Good talking to you. Take care. Bye, buddy. For Dan Proft, host for Chicago's Morning Answer, 5 to 9 a.m. weekdays on W I&D. Excellent golfer, fisherman, and writer who's written for Johncast News and other publications. And for Jeff Carlin, executive producer WGN Radio, my friend. I know he's sick of it, but he is friends to cats and baker of pies. And for me, John Cass of John Cass News, we always get a good cup of Midwestern common sense. Join us again, won't you? Next time on the Chicago Way podcast on WGN Plus.