As the President and his team head over to Viet Nam for the second Summit with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, it’s important to reflect on where we’ve come from in what time period so moving forward we can see if Trump is the deal maker he suggests he is.
When Trump was elected, we had no dialog with Kim Jong Un. He was testing rockets and bombs. Americans were wringing their hands. The world was very uptight. Things were Not Good.
Trump came along and as is his way, he vowed to take on the challenge of taming the hermit kingdom. I don’t know whether anyone took Trump seriously since no president before him had ever made ANY PROGRESS with the Kims. Actually, nobody took Trump serious. Since the history of the Kim family dynasty was to take and never give, it would take a masterful deal maker to change history.
So, we are just two years into Trump’s presidency and we are heading out for the second summit with the DPRK. That’s a good thing in my mind.
It’s hard to say if we’ve made substantive progress in de-nuclearizing the Korean peninsula but we appear to be talking and not backing off on the sanctions. We have additional sanctions to apply if punitive action is warranted.
I am amused by the critics of the president who have a lot to say about how Trump should manage the negotiations and how he should apply more pressure or back off the pressure and how he should extract hard promises from Kim or how quickly the deed should be done before we declare the effort a failure.
What I would recommend to the smart asses in the congress and the press is to shut the hell up and let Trump negotiate with Kim. We were going nowhere before Trump arrived and we appear to be moving slowly forward so let the process proceed. If at the end of Trump’s first term we are still talking but don’t have a deal, we are making progress.
Pundits inside the government and out, have lots of opinions about how Trump should conduct the talks and for them the narrow definition of what success looks like. I’m willing to let Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo take as much time as they need to soften up the North Koreans and make their case for change in the DPRK. The process is not a sprint. If it takes five more years but ends with Kim giving up his nukes, I would call that success.
For many of those pundits who have offered opinions for years, Trump again is a threat because if he succeeds at any level, it will demonstrate that the pundits didn’t know their butts from a hole in the ground. That is the crux of the problem with Trump in this case and so many others.
We’ve been led to believe that problem after problem are un-repairable and Trump has systematically taken them on while applying different approaches to fixes and proved the champions of the status quo to be absolutely full of BS.
Humiliating the pundits is very dangerous for Trump because all the pundits offer is some level of expertise on a subject and when Trump demonstrates their ignorance, it creates even more hate. Threats against their livelihoods can cause desperate measures.
North Korea will not just roll over because Trump offers to talk. North Korea will need to see a clear benefit from the negotiations before they give up anything. Trump is using a long standing strategy in working with Asian cultures that place a high value on relationships. Trump is working on the relationships and that is a very good thing.
Hopefully, Kim will realize for himself the benefits of change for his country. Let’s hope for the sake of the North Korean people that he sees the light sooner rather than later.
No Loss for Words 
Who Will have the Ear of the Next Republican Nominee?
by Steve DanaThere is a presidential election coming in 2028.
You may think that sounds premature. It isn’t.
The race doesn’t begin when candidates announce. It begins when alliances form, when donors make quiet commitments, and when organizations decide who will be lifted up — and who will quietly be squeezed out.
I watched Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak in Munich last week. It was a strong speech. Confident. Clear. Grounded in America’s historic alliance with Western Europe. He looked like a man comfortable on the world stage. A man wanting to prove he belongs on the world stage.
And I found myself asking a larger question.
When Donald Trump leaves the stage, who stands there next — and who stands behind them?
For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party has a deep bench. JD Vance. Marco Rubio. Glenn Youngkin. Vivek Ramaswamy. Each brings talent. Each brings ambition. Each brings potential.
But potential is not the same thing as independence.
Donald Trump disrupted something in 2016. Whatever one thinks of his style, he walked into politics with his own resources and his own agenda. The traditional donor class did not build him. They did not fund him into existence. In many ways, they were left on the outside looking in.
And that sent a message.
For decades, Americans have watched candidates promise reform and then govern with altogether different priorities. Priorities influenced by the financial ecosystem that carried them to power. Large donors write large checks. Large donors expect access. Access brings influence. Influence brings policy.
That pattern is not new. It is woven into modern politics.
Trump challenged that pattern. Not perfectly. Not without resistance. But he challenged it.
The question now is whether that disruption becomes the new normal — or whether it was simply an exception.
Will the Republican Party allow a fully contested primary in 2028? Or will organizations and power brokers quietly consolidate behind one heir apparent before voters have truly weighed their options?
We have seen what happens when parties bypass robust primaries. Voters notice. Voters resent it. And often, voters respond.
I like JD Vance. I respect Marco Rubio. I admire Glenn Youngkin’s record in Virginia. Vivek Ramaswamy has undeniable energy. But admiration is not the issue.
The issue is allegiance.
If America First was more than a slogan — if it was a governing philosophy — then who carries it forward? And can they carry it forward without becoming indebted to the very structures that resisted it?
Because here is what many Americans understand instinctively: money in politics is never neutral.
Campaigns are expensive. Media is expensive. National organization is expensive. Unless a candidate arrives with extraordinary personal wealth, they must raise funds. And when funds are raised, relationships are formed. When relationships are formed, expectations follow.
That is not cynicism. That is reality.
For years, many of us have spoken about what is often called the “deep state” — the permanent bureaucracy, the consultant class, the professional political operatives who remain while elected officials come and go. Those structures do not disappear. They adapt. They wait.
And they prefer predictability.
Disruptors are tolerated only temporarily. Systems prefer stability. Systems prefer familiarity. Systems prefer candidates who understand how things are “supposed” to work.
So I ask again:
When Donald Trump exits the stage, does the system quietly reset?
Will the next president be chosen by voters — or shaped long before by donors, consultants, and institutional power?
These are not accusations. They are questions. And they are questions worth asking early.
The 2028 election will not simply be about personality. It will not simply be about messaging. It will be about whether the political and financial architecture that defined Washington for decades reasserts itself fully.
If the Republican Party believes in competition, then let there be competition. Let the candidates debate. Let them challenge each other. Let them prove not only their talent, but their independence.
Because voters are not naïve.
They know that campaign money flows somewhere. They know that influence follows money. And they know that governing courage is rare.
Donald Trump was, in many ways, an anomaly. The exception. The disruption.
The next election will tell us whether that disruption changed the system — or whether the system was merely waiting its turn.
Who will lead?
More importantly — who will own the leader?
Answering that question begins now.
Posted in 28 Campaign, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »