In the real world, good stories don’t have happy endings. It never happens.
And honestly? They’re exceedingly rare in the fictional world, too. Most of what we call “happily ever after” is a wordier version of “the end.” It’s just something the author says when he runs out of ideas.
One more time: There are no happy endings!
After all, when a story is truly great, we don’t want it to end. We need the story to go on and on forever — and for the adventures to continue. When it’s finally time to say goodbye, we mourn the loss.
And mourning isn’t happy.
But it’s par for the course in storytelling; the immoveable yin to the irresistible yang. Can’t have one without the other. As American genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist Tony Stark noted before his death:
“Part of the journey is the end.”
So don’t worry about how a political story is gonna stick the landing. It won’t! When it ends, it’ll end with a whimper. No exceptions; no redemptions.
And more likely than not, you’ll be very disappointed.
That’s our Faustian bargain when we end the political fray: There won’t be a “happily ever after” for you, me, Donald Trump, or any of our grandchildren. It. Will. Not. Happen.
To expect otherwise is to misunderstand the Nature of the Beast.
All we can do is fight the good fight for as long as we can. Then, when it’s time to hand the baton to the next generation, we hope that our country will be in a better condition than it was in when we found it. That’s all we can do.
Politics is a very strange game, because neither side is really playing to win. Instead, both sides are playing not to lose.
Ronald Reagan was exactly right when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” We can’t win this war for our children, but if we do nothing, we could absolutely lose it.
That’s my advice for conservatives: Don’t focus on how it’s gonna end. Focus on the journey.
Because we still have a LOT of work to do.
PRedictions: The contrast between Tulsi Gabbard’s professional, media-ready presentation of the Russiagate evidence — and Pam Bondi’s ham-fisted handling of the Epstein scandal — is increasingly apparent. Whereas Bondi floundered, Gabbard sailed with high marks. Gabbard’s tone, media appearances, and management of the drip-drip-drip storyline is about as good as it gets.
She’s proving herself to be a tremendous asset for MAGA. (And she looks great on TV, too.)
It’s putting the mainstream media in an impossible vise. Check out this feather-fisted rebuttal from Rolling Stone (from Friday, Aug. 1, 2025): “MAGA’s New Russiagate ‘Evidence’ Was Likely Made Up by the Kremlin.”
Isn’t that nice: When the Deep State’s “evidence” about Trump being in cahoots with Russia was disproven, why, that MUST be even MORE evidence of Russian interference!
What else could it possibly mean?! Like, duh!
(And they call us “science deniers.”)
Either way, I’m curious to see where Gabbard goes with this. So far, she’s been an absolute rockstar.
PRojections: CNN could be going the way of the dodo. For all the talk about MSNBC’s ratings collapse, CNN has sunken to subterranean depths:
In a stunning blow to one of America’s most storied news networks, CNN suffered a dramatic collapse in viewership in July 2025, recording its lowest primetime ratings in history. Nielsen data reveals that CNN’s primetime lineup (8–11 p.m.) averaged a mere 497,000 total viewers, a catastrophic 42% drop from July 2024. The figures mark a steep decline for the network, which trailed far behind competitors MSNBC and Fox News, despite a news cycle packed with major political developments and global crises.
The numbers paint a grim picture for CNN. MSNBC nearly doubled CNN’s primetime audience with 865,000 viewers, while Fox News dominated the cable news landscape with a commanding 2.41 million viewers—nearly five times CNN’s total.
One ex-CNN pundit called it “disastrously bad”:
These numbers for CNN — from @oliverdarcy — are disastrously bad:
— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) July 30, 2025
“The cable news network averaged only 497,000 total viewers in prime time for the month of July, despite unrelenting waves of major news. MSNBC, by comparison, averaged 865,000 total viewers. Meanwhile, Fox News…
Those sorts of numbers simply aren’t sustainable. Eventually, something’s gotta give.
PRaise: To the Republican Party, for not following the Democratic Party as anti-Israel apologists for Hamas. It’s the damndest thing: The mainstream media keeps insisting the GOP is deeply divided over Israel:
Axios: Gaza starvation widens MAGA’s rupture with Israel
The Hill: Republican infighting expands to an unusual place: Israel
Politico: MAGA is turning on Israel over Gaza, but Trump is unmoved
MSNBC News: Cracks emerging in MAGA over Israel’s actions in Gaza
The New York Times: Greene Calls Gaza Crisis a ‘Genocide,’ Hinting at Rift on the Right Over Israel
Time Magazine: GOP Split on Gaza Grows, as MTG Calls Crisis a ‘Genocide’
Barron’s: Trump’s MAGA Base Defies Conservative Pro-Israel Doctrine
The New Republic: MTG Calls Out Israel’s Genocide in Gaza While Torching GOP Colleague
Newsweek: Is MAGA Turning Against Israel?
The Hill: The American right is falling out of love with Israel
NBC News: Republicans split over the hunger crisis in Gaza as Trump says he’ll push for aid
But we’re not. Because, during the same week, Gallup released a new poll on America’s views on Israel, and Republican support DID NOT go down. It DID NOT drop.
It increased by 5 points!
In contrast [to Democrats and independents], 71% of Republicans say they approve of Israel’s action in Gaza, up from 66% in September. [emphasis added]
The mainstream media needs to push this narrative about the GOP abandoning Israel to justify its own antisemitism: If it’s purely a Democratic problem, that’s no bueno for a party that calls its enemies racists, bigots, antisemites, and Nazis.
Unfortunately, it really is a Democratic problem. MORE than 7 out of 10 Republicans stand with Israel. And today, a Jewish kid in a yarmulke is safer in rural Alabama (or pretty much anywhere in the Bible Belt) than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia.
PRedators: How come Stephen Colbert never offered to cut his salary to keep “The Late Show” on the air? He was making $15 million a year, and his show employed 200 people. I’m pretty dang sure no one else was making anywhere close to Colbert’s salary. So, all those leftists who [whine] and moan about CEOs being overpaid: Why didn’t you condemn Colbert?
His show was LOSING $40 million a year… but he was taking home $15 million? What in the name of Lenin is going on?!
Frankly, he would’ve gained a modicum of my respect if he had offered to forego his salary and see if he could boost his show’s ad rate, to save his coworkers jobs. But he didn’t do that, did he?
Instead, he complained, called himself a victim, and told the president to go f*** himself.
But it’s not OUR fault he failed. After all, Colbert wasn’t making a show for Republicans: Over the first half of 2025, “The Late Show” booked 43 left-leaning guests — and not one single conservative!
So don’t blame us, Stephen. Go tell the liberals to go f*** themselves, ‘cause they’re the ones who let you down.
We weren’t even invited to the party.
