The Trump Colbert Talarico Problem is So Bad
PDS Published 02/17/2026
-
Right, Colbert opened his show last night saying he intended to air an interview with a Democratic Senate candidate out of Texas, but:
“You know who is not one of my guests tonight? That is Texas State Rep. James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention that I could not have him on. And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about it.” (1:35-2:08)
Right, and Colbert’s network here is CBS, which makes the news a little less shocking, even if it is still horrifying.
Because over the last year or so, CBS and its parent company, Paramount-Skydance, have been bending over backwards to appease Trump for a series of corporate and political reasons, ever since it fell into David Ellison’s ownership.
CBS News has been accused of morphing into Fox News Lite, its chief Bari Weiss pulled a 60 Minutes story critical of an immigration detention center used under the Trump administration.
And last year, they also announced they were pulling the plug on Colbert’s show, a move many viewed as the network attempting to curry favor with Trump.
So CBS’s rightward shift has been well-documented.
And James Talarico (Tal-uh-ree-co, tal like pal), the guest Colbert wanted to interview, is a Democrat running to unseat Republican John Cornyn in a really major Senate race.
Right, Cornyn is facing a primary challenge from AG Ken Paxton, Talarico is facing off Jasmine Crokett in the primary himself. []
And even though Democrats have not won a statewide election in Texas in decades, because the race is getting so chaotic, Democrats are hoping they can actually pave a path forward here.
And Colbert explained that this whole interview controversy deals with the FCC and its “equal time” rule, which says that if a broadcast network gives air time to one candidate, their opponent is entitled to equal air time on the network, too.[]
Though, news and talk show interviews have long been considered exceptions to this rule.
But bad news for Colbert, earlier this year, FCC chairman Brendan Carr released a letter suggesting that talk show interviews should maybe not be exempt from the equal time rule, especially if they are “motivated by partisan purposes.”
And because Brendan Carr loves to lick the bottom of Trump’s filthy boots and hates anyone who doesn’t follow suit, he probably has no issue painting Colbert as “too partisan” for an exemption.
But of course, Colbert disagrees, and thinks it is Carr who is the one motivated by partisan purposes, and argued that:
“Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV.”
With Colbert noting that just a week ago, the FCC opened a probe into The View for interviewing Talarico, so his candidacy has really been at the center of the FCC’s politics lately.
And so to get around this equal time rule, Colbert still decided to interview Talarico, but posted it to YouTube instead of airing on TV, as these rules only apply to radio and broadcast television, not streaming or social media.
And even though there is a lot of political heat on him, Talarico was not afraid to call out Trump and CBS for this censorship.
“I think that Donald Trump is worried that we are about to flip Texas.” (1:07-1:12)
“This is the party that ran against cancel culture, and now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read, and this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture. The kind that comes from the top.” (1:24-1:39)
You also have plenty of people comparing this to when ABC yanked Kimmel off the air last year after being threatened by Trump’s FCC.
Others calling this an attack on freedom of speech, with Senator Chris Murphy writing:
“This is a censorship state. Is censorship a conservative value? Is that why Republicans are silent about this? No, of course not. They are just happy to let Trump try to rig our politics because they benefit. []
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (Yoss-uh-men, yoss like boss, En-sorry) echoing that by saying:[]
“The right hates freedom of speech because their policies are largely unpopular and implementing them requires shutting people up and a lack of opposition.”
Others tying it to ongoing corporate deals at CBS and Paramount, arguing that:
“The real reason CBS didn't let Colbert air his interview with James Talarico is that the Ellisons are still trying to buy Warner Bros. David Ellison runs Paramount, which owns CBS. He's using CBS to show what loyal oligarchs they are as they seek FCC approval for a WBD deal.”[]
Tons also giving Colbert props for calling his network out, noting that he “was told not to say anything and did so anyways. This man is not getting enough credit for standing up for free speech.”[]
Because you also have people really pushing against Carr and the FCC for enforcing the equal time rule against Colbert like this, right, claiming that is just not how it works.
With The Bulwark’s Tim Miller noting that this:
“would basically mean no presidential primary candidates in 2027 on network tv bc none of the shows are going to talk to all the loser alsorans.”[]
Others using this controversy to heavily promote Talarico’s interview, saying that:
“Just because CBS kneels to Trump doesn’t mean the rest of us have to…Make sure it is seen far and wide in our country.”[]
And some also think that, in many ways, this was the best thing that could have happened to Talarico’s campaign, because he is now making national headlines.
Over on YouTube, the segment has racked up well over one million views as of this morning.
Which is an especially high count when you see that clips from Colbert’s interview with Jennifer Garner, his other guest from last night, only have tens of thousands of views so far. []
And that is just one platform, there are millions more views on TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram.
So it is a real case of the Streisand effect here, in attempting to mute Colbert and Talarico, the FCC actually just ensured that even more people would be watching.
And, I mean, in many ways, you could argue Trump is doing the same with the Epstein files every time he says the country needs to move on from the issue….
But it seems like the exact opposite may be happening, because we just got an absolutely MASSIVE development in the Epstein situation that could result in future prosecutions and maybe, just maybe, some actual fucking accountability.
-
But it seems like the exact opposite may be happening, because we just got an absolutely MASSIVE development in the Epstein situation that could result in future prosecutions and maybe, just maybe, some actual fucking accountability.
Lawmakers in New Mexico just launched a sweeping investigation into Epstein’s Zorro Ranch over allegations that he used the property as yet another location to sexually abuse and traffic women and girls.
Right, yesterday, the State House voted unanimously on a bill to create a subcommittee that will investigate the goings on at the mansion outside of Santa Fe that Epstein owned from 1993 until his death in 2019.
And this is absolutely massive because it marks the first full investigation of what happened at the property despite the incredibly serious allegations that have been swirling for years.
Right, multiple girls and women have claimed that they were sexually abused at the ranch, which also appears numerous times in the Epstein files that the DOJ has released.
And while law enforcement authorities have raided Epstein’s other properties, including his New York townhouse, Palm Beach mansion, Paris apartment, and, of course, Epstein Island, there have not been any holistic inquiries into Zorro Ranch.
In fact, it seems like federal officials may have even scuttled a state-level investigation in the past.
Right, after Epstein’s arrest in 2019, the then-attorney general of New Mexico launched a probe into the property.
But the state AG’s office put those efforts on hold after federal prosecutors in New York told them to back off because the federal investigation was already covering multiple jurisdictions.
But, very notably here, back in December of 2019, a federal prosecutor told the co-executor of Epstein’s estate in an email that federal agents had “not searched the New Mexico property.”
And numerous state and local officials in New Mexico have also said they were not aware that ANY federal search took place at the ranch.
And since the DOJ started releasing some of the files, there has been increased scrutiny of the ranch, as well as the fact that there doesn’t appear to have been any kind of real investigation into it.
But, of course, the Trump administration has done fuck all about anything and instead chosen to gaslight the American people whenever someone has the audacity to ask if they might consider any new probes in light of the damning evidence that’s been released.
And this even after state officials have repeatedly asked the administration to investigate allegations that the bodies of two girls were buried near the ranch — a claim that comes from an anonymous email made public in the latest Epstein files dump.
But the Trump administration’s refusal to do anything is exactly why state lawmakers said they needed to take matters into their own hands.
With state Rep. Andrea Romero, who sponsored the bill to create the subcommittee, arguing that the case has been “mishandled and pushed out of the purview” for many years, adding:
“We have heard years of allegations and rumors about Epstein’s activities in New Mexico, but unfortunately, federal investigations have failed to put together an official record.”
And going on to say that the subcommittee “can finally fill in the gaps by investigating the failures that led to the horrific allegations of abuse and crime at Zorro Ranch, so we can learn from them and prevent such atrocities from taking place in our state going forward.”
And these state lawmakers aren’t fucking around — Romero says one of the goals of the committee will be to gather information that could be used in court for future prosecutions.
And specifically, the panel will be given the power to issue subpoenas, access public records, and seek testimony from survivors of alleged abuse, as well as local residents who may have relevant information.
With lawmakers saying that key pieces of evidence will be used to identify people who visited the ranch, as well as state and local officials who may have known what was going on there.
Which is notable because the files have already revealed ties between Epstein and two former Democratic governors and an attorney general of New Mexico.
And a lawyer for Epstein survivors told reporters that local politicians and others were aware of what was happening at the ranch.
But, unlike the Trump administration, they aren’t afraid to name names — Romero has vowed that the committee will publicly identify suspected perpetrators.
And while the panel has officially started its work as of today, it might be a second before we get any information, because they aren’t expected to release their interim findings until July, with a final report set for the end of the year.
But this could be a real opportunity to actually see the kind of transparency and accountability that the Trump administration has long been accused of avoiding.
And on the topic of transparency, while lawmakers in New Mexico were taking steps to uncover the truth, Hillary Clinton was accusing the Trump administration of launching a full-scale cover-up while speaking to the BBC:
“And what we're seeing — I think it's fair to say — is a continuing cover up by the Trump administration.” 1:49 - 1:55
“So there’s something about this Administration’s attitude towards this, which I think leads us to conclude they have something to hide. We don’t. We’ve been willing to say whatever we know.” 2:13 - 2:29
“Get the files out. They are slowwalking it. They are redacting the names of men who are in it. They are stonewalling legitimate requests from members of Congress. That has nothing to do with us. Something is going on. They know it. I know it.” 5:24 - 5:39
With Clinton going on to note that she and her husband have both agreed to testify before the House about Epstein after Republicans threatened to hold them in contempt of Congress, arguing that the whole thing was just a diversion and accusing Republican House leaders of trying to protect Trump.
But you also had Trump himself hitting back at Clinton’s remarks:
“I have nothing to hide. I’ve been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They went in hoping that they’d find it, and found just the opposite. I’ve been totally exonerated.” 00:12 - 00:21
“They’re getting pulled in, and that’s their problem, but I watched her in Munich, and she seriously has Trump derangement syndrome. I’ve been totally exonerated, and it’s really interesting because they’ve been pulled in. Think of it, they’ve been pulled in. Clinton and many other Democrats have been pulled in.” 00:31 - 00:51
Now, of course, Trump has not been “totally exonerated” by the files, and no matter how many times he says that, it doesn’t make it remotely true.
His name is mentioned THOUSANDS of times, and, if anything, it shows that his relationship with Epstein was much longer and more involved than he has claimed.
But, that said, while he might not be “exonerated,” it does seem like he will never be held accountable for associating with Epstein, even as more and more people continue to face career-ending fallout after having their names appear in the files.
I mean, hell, over the weekend, we saw high-profile Hollywood talent agent Casey Wasserman announcing that he will be selling his agency amid widespread backlash from his ties to Epstein and Maxwell.
With this also coming after major clients like Chappell Roan left the agency following the initial revelations.
And just yesterday, LA Mayor Karen Bass also called on Wasserman to resign from his post as the Chairman of the 2028 Olympics.
Also yesterday, you had Thomas J. Pritzker — a billionaire heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and cousin of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — announcing that he has stepped down from his role Monday as executive chairman of the Hyatt Hotels Corporation.
And this after the latest dump of files revealed that Pritzker was in regular contact with Epstein in the years after he accepted a plea deal on sex crime charges in 2008.
And in a statement this past Friday, Columbia University said it had punished two people affiliated with its dental college after documents revealed that they helped Epstein’s girlfriend gain admission outside the normal application process.
With the school cutting ties entirely with one of the people and stripping another of their administrative duties at the dental college.
Now, to be clear, it’s a good thing that at least some people are being held accountable.
But at the same time, it just makes it even more infuriating that Trump and others up there at the top with him aren’t experiencing any consequences, even when their ties go just as deep — if not deeper — than some of these people.
Go to HelloFresh now to get 10 free meals + a FREE Zwilling Knife (a $144.99 value) on your third box. Offer valid while supplies last. Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan
-
But then, getting back into the news, are Muslims coming for your dogs? Or is Congressman Randy Fine just a bigot?
Spoiler, it’s the second one!
But we still gotta talk about exactly why you have people saying that – including his bogus claim that an Islam-inspired dog ban is on the way in New York City.
Which isn’t remotely true and is really just the latest example of Republicans spreading lies about Muslims in the US in order to score political points – especially in Texas.
But starting with Fine, who represents Florida, you had him sparking outrage this weekend when he wrote on X:
“If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one."
He then explained in a follow-up message that his statement was a response to another post from someone he described as the “leader of one of the key mainstream Muslim groups that supported” New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani – which said:
“Finally, NYC is coming to Islam. Dogs definitely have a place in society, just not as indoor pets. Like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”
And the person who shared this? Her name is Nerdeen Kiswani (Ner-deen Kiss-wah-knee - AUDIO).
She is the founder of one of New York’s major pro-Palestinian groups, she has actually criticized Mamdani several times, and she has no role in his administration.
Also, according to her, and many who read what she wrote, she wasn’t being at all serious.
With her explaining after the post starting picking up steam:
“It’s obviously a joke.”
“I don’t care if you have a dog, I do care if your dog is shitting everywhere and you’re not cleaning it.”
And with that, this is a legitimate ongoing point of conversation in the city.
The number of complaints about dog waste not being picked up in the city has reportedly been increasing for years.
And just a few days ago – before all of this – you even had the New York Post publishing an article about:
“New Yorkers [being] forced to dodge mine fields of unscooped dog poop littering weeks-old sidewalk snow.”
And with that, you had Kiss-wah-knee also later telling NBC News that her original comment was “satire” based on a “hyper local NYC conversation” about dog waste in the city.
Adding she was “satirizing Islamophobic hysteria portraying Mamdani’s mayoralty as a societal takeover.”
You’ve also her saying online that she’s received death threats – while also highlighting what she sees as hypocrisy, writing:
“Kristi Noem literally bragged about shooting her own dog and most of you did not bat an eyelash.”
Adding in a separate post that 97 percent of Gaza’s animal life has been wiped out.
Although, to be clear, that figure is from an advocacy group and it refers specifically to the territory’s “animal wealth” such as livestock.
But, in any case, while all that context matters, you have many arguing that whatever Kiss-wah-knee said, there’s no context that would've made comparing dogs to Muslims okay.
With New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, writing on X:
“This is genuinely one of the most disgusting statements I have ever seen issued by an American official.”
“It should not stop shocking us that the Republican Party openly embraces this. Fine should be censured & stripped of committees. To ignore this is to accept and normalize it.”
You had Rep. Ro Khanna expressing a similar sentiment – writing:
‘We must call this what it is. Disgusting bigotry.”
“Fine must be censured. It's about morality and decency, not politics.”
And outside of Congress you had California Governor Gavin Newsom urging Fine to resign – calling him a “racist slob.”
With even Piers Morgan, the conservative commentator from the UK piling on, slamming Fine as a “disgusting prick.”
But with all that, you’ve also had many arguing that this is not the first time Randy Fine has said something he should lose his job for.
And this actually included Kiss-wah-knee, who told NBC he had a “documented pattern of dehumanizing Palestinians and Muslims” – adding:
“....there has been a troubling pattern in which anti Muslim and anti Palestinian rhetoric from elected officials has not been met with the level of accountability we would expect if almost any other community were discussed this way.”
And you also had the Council on American-Islamic Relations noting that it’s already called for Fine’s resignation after he suggested that you can’t make peace with “Mainstream Muslims” and you have to destroy them first..
But with all that, Fine has shown no remorse, and in fact, he has only doubled and tripled down.
With him expanding his claims about who made the original post from someone in charge of an organization that supported Mamdani to “a major NYC Muslim leader” and a “key Mamdani advisor.”
And then, in a NewsMax interview, you had him somehow making the leap to a dog ban being something Democrats, including AOC, are pushing for:
“It’s not enough for Democrats to think anyone who wants to come here illegally should be able to do that. They also think they should be able to get whatever free stuff they want. Now they’re demanding that we change our values and how we live as Americans. My post was in response to a major Muslim leader saying dogs should be forbidden because to some Muslims it bothers them. Well, if they’re gonna make us choose between keeping our dogs and them going home, the choice is easy. And people should know Democrats like AOC are saying ‘we are going to get rid of your dogs.’ Americans need to keep that in mind when they go and vote in November” (BYTE: 0:38-1:16)
But, of course, they don’t…because no one, and especially no one in power, is trying to get rid of dogs in New York City!
Just like no one is seriously trying to implement sharia law in Texas – but Republican lawmakers from there still created a “Sharia-Free America Caucus” in Congress.
And the State Senate is currently weighing legislation requested by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick to ensure Texans “are never held under the heel of ‘Sharia law.’” []
And with that, the type of anti-Muslim rhetoric we’ve seen from Fine, it’s become particularly common in Texas, especially with elections coming up.
Valentina Gomez launched her candidacy in Texas’ 31st Congressional District last year with a video showing her burning a Quran and declaring that “your daughters will be raped and your sons beheaded, unless we stop Islam once and for all.”
Texas Senator John Cornyn, for example, is currently up for reelection – and he recently launched a seven-figure ad buy titled declaring “radical Islam…a bloodthirsty ideology.”
And Larry Brock, an Air Force veteran who served two years in prison for entering the U.S. Capitol on January 6th and is now running for a seat in the state legislature, has called for banning the hijab, hilal meat, and the celebration of Ramadan.
Also, notably, several ads from different candidates in the state use footage from a place called the East Plano Islamic Center – where just this weekend Muslims were harassed while praying.
And you have many saying they’re now increasingly living in fear.
But notably, all that attention? It’s despite the fact that Muslims make up around 2 percent of the Texas population.
Right, and so reportedly, a lot of the anti-Muslim sentiment is believed to have originated out around the suburbs of Dallas and Fort Worth.
Where the number of Muslim residents really has grown significantly in recent decades, along with the number of mosques.
And you have outlets like the New York Times arguing that it’s become the new way to motivate Republican voters now that border crossings have all but come to a stop.
With a top strategist for Governor Greg Abbott telling the paper:
“Any event you go to, people ask about it. It’s like the border used to be.”
‘What are you doing about Shariah law? What are you doing about the Muslims taking over the state?’” []
And a consultant for the Texas GOP telling Politico:
“The Muslim community is the boogeyman for this cycle,”
“One hundred percent this message works — there’s no question about it. This has been polled up one side and down the other, and with Texas Republican primary voters, it works. It is a thing they are legitimately scared of.” []
And with that, early voting for the state’s primaries are starting today, so we’ll have to see if this really ends up being a winning strategy in the long run.
But in the meantime, while the primaries in Texas get underway, we’ve also gotta talk about what many are calling another, unofficial primary for the Democratic presidential nomination.
-
But while the primaries in Texas are underway, we’ve also gotta talk about what many see as another, unofficial primary for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And it took place not in D.C., not in any swing state, but in Germany, at the Munich Security Conference.
Because three Democrats widely seen as 2028 frontrunners hopped on planes and flew over there to provide some opposition at a summit where the U.S. was otherwise represented by Marco Rubio, and don’t worry, we’ll get to the crazy shit he said.
But first, we’ve gotta talk about these Democrats, starting with Gavin Newsom attacking Trump on climate policy. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:27 - 00:41]
Then Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who got a lot of flak for this answer to a question about what victory would look like for Ukraine. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:08 - 00:32]
With some saying it’s weird that she’s on a panel talking about foreign policy if she claims not to know much about foreign policy.
But that brings us to one of the other panelists she pointed to as being more “steeped” in the subject: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. [Image]
Because when she opened her mouth, everyone listened very intently — right, she’s typically focused on domestic issues and this was the most prominent foreign trip to date for her.
Plus if she’s gonna be running for president, which is not confirmed yet, then it’s important to hear her philosophy on world affairs.
And generally her international message mirrored her domestic one: right, the United States needs to cooperate with allies to tamp down inequality, lift up the global working class, and combat far-right authoritarianism.
With her also favoring diplomacy with Iran and saying that unconditional aid to Israel has enabled a genocide in Gaza.
But Republicans seized on a few specific moments where she seemed to stumble as evidence that she and the Democrats more broadly are unserious about foreign policy.
For example when she was asked about whether the U.S. should commit troops to defending Taiwan if China moves against it, then appeared to fumble for a good 20 seconds before giving a non-answer. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:25 - 03:05]
Also, at another point, instead of saying transatlantic partnership, she said …
[Clip, 01:11 - 01:14] Caption: “The transpacific partnership.”
… Which she later acknowledged was just a mistake. [Post]
And lastly, during an answer about Venezuelan ex president Nicholas Maduro she seemed to betray a lack of knowledge about geography.
[Clip, 00:05 - 00:16] Caption: “He cancelled elections. He was an anti-Democratic leader. That doesn’t mean that we can kidnap a head of state and engage in acts of war just because the nation is below the equator.”
Right, for context, Venezuela is not below the equator.
So commentators on the right had a field day with all this, mocking her as stupid, clueless, uninformed, with Trump joining in as well.
[Clip, 11:36 - 11:42, 12:14 - 12:23] Caption: “I watched AOC answering questions in Munich. This was not a good look for the United States. … They started answering questions. She had no idea what was happening. She had no idea how to answer very important questions concerning the world.”
Which, I’ve gotta say, is rich coming from a man who’s entire shtick is calling reporters fake whenever they ask questions he doesn’t like.
Not to mention he’s the king of gaffs; right, he’s the guy who apparently thought he was about to board a plane to Russia to meet Putin (it was actually Alaska), and repeatedly mistook Greenland, the territory he wanted to invade because he didn’t get the Nobel prize, for Iceland.
Oh, and how about that time he said George Washington’s army took control of airports during the Revolutionary War?
[Clip, 00:16 - 00:20]
Anyway, AOC told The New York Times she was frustrated by the way her performance at Munich was microscopically dissected through the lens of what it meant for a hypothetical White House campaign. [Quote, find “dissected”]
Saying, “This reporter came up to me and was like, ‘Is Munich the new New Hampshire?’ And I cannot say enough how out of touch and missing the point, genuinely, that is. Global democracies are on fire the world over, and established parties are falling to right-wing populist movements.” [Quote same link]
Adding that she went to Munich “not because I’m running for president, not because I’ve made some kind of decision about a horse race or a candidacy, but because we need to sound the alarm bells that a lot of those folks in nicely pressed suits in that room will not be there much longer if we do not do something about the runaway inequality that is fueling far-right populist movements.” [Quote same link]
And according to her, that argument was well-received by the Europeans, including the German leaders she privately met with.
But she did participate in the viral clip drama at least a little bit, because she took this shot at Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio for this claim.
[Clip, 19:06 - 19:18] Caption: “Our horses, our ranches, our rodeos, the entire romance of the cowboy archetyp that became synonymous with the American West—these were born in Spain.”
With AOC later calling that out at the same conference.
[Clip, 00:06 - 00:25] Caption: “My favorite part was when he said that American cowboys came from Spain. I believe the Mexicans and descendants of African enslaved peoples would like to have a word on that.”
Now of course, that sparked a heated debate online about where cowboys actually came from.
You know, one of those debates where you can tell nobody really cares about the little thing being debated — it’s clearly about something much, much deeper.
With those on the right pointing out that the Spanish had a long tradition of horsemanship which they brought to the Americas.
Right, the earliest American cowboys were the vaqueros, with “vaca” being Spanish for “cow,” and even the “lasso” coming from the Spanish word for rope.
So Ted Cruz declared victory over wokeness, writing at AOC: “Tell me you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history.” [Post]
But hold up there Ted, not so fast, because it turns out the actual history is a bit more complicated.
As the History Channel notes, “First trained by the Spaniards who arrived in 1519, on land later known as Mexico, the original vaqueros were largely Indigenous Mesoamerican men who were trained to wrangle cattle on horseback.” [Quote]
Also, the vaqueros weren’t just horsemen in the Spanish mold; they developed their own distinctive culture.
They built their own saddles, braided their own rope, invented their distinctive chaps, tamed wild horses, and mastered the signature lasso.
Plus historians estimate that by the 19th century, as many as a quarter of all cowboys were black. [Quote same link, find “fourth”]
Right, it was only with the Hollywood Westerns of the early 20th century that cowboys were seen as heroic white Americans, rather than the multiracial groups that actually developed the practice.
But just like with AOC, I don’t want this one little moment to completely overshadow everything else Marco Rubio said in his speech.
Because on the one hand, he took a much friendlier, more cooperative posture toward Europe than Trump and Vance have, which gave many on the continent some reassurance.
But on the other hand, the common ground he found between America and Europe was a little abstract, and to many it sounded like a dog whistle for race.
[Clip, 05:20 - 05:40, 06:23 - 06:27] Caption: “We are part of one civilization, Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together. … We are connected spiritually, and we are connected culturally.”
Now I should note here that scholars debate whether the concept “Western civilization” is even useful or historically tenable.
But even putting that aside, many of the things that Rubio thinks bind the “West” together — language, culture, religion, ancestry — are precisely the things that tore Europe apart in bloody wars for centuries.
Yet Rubio cast all of Europe as one unified civilization that single-handedly made the United States what it is.
With him lumping together Christopher Columbus, English settlers, Scotts-Irish frontiersmen, German farmers and craftsmen, French fur traders and explorers, and of course Spanish “cowboys.”
Meanwhile, he made no mention of any contribution by non-European peoples, no mention of the slaves who picked the cotton, no mention of the Chinese who built the railroads, nothing about the Mexicans who labored on farms, to name just a few of many, many examples.
In fact, the only times Rubio did mention non-white people, it was to paint them as a dangerous threat.
With him claiming that mass migration is destabilizing Western societies, disrupting cultural cohesion, and threatening the future of what he called “our people.”
Though apparently he doesn’t care when that migration goes the other way, because he waxed nostalgic about how for five centuries the West had sent missionaries, pilgrims, soldiers and explorers across oceans to “build vast empires,” but only stopped expanding after World War Two.
[Clip, 13:44 - 13:54] Caption: “The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings.”
But as others have pointed out, that seems to fly in the face of his earlier argument, because the five centuries he wants to go back to was a time when Europeans were almost constantly killing each other.
In fact, the postwar period he doesn’t like was one of the most stable and peaceful periods in transatlantic history.
But anyway, Rubio said that just as leaders refused to allow the decline of Western dominance in centuries past, Donald Trump and the United States want to do that again today, together with Europe.
[Clip, 14:51 - 15:03] Caption: “This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture, and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization.”
Go to Brain.fm to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works.
