Hey folks—I know not everyone gets a chance to catch Rush Hour live, so I’m going to start including a link to each episode right here in the blast. That way, if you missed the show or just want to hear it again, it’s only a click away – or check out my thoughts below.

VIEW HERE: 

Look out for the Rush Hour link Tuesday – Saturday in your Daily BS email blast.

If you wanted a snapshot of American politics in 2026, Florida gave us a pretty good one Tuesday night.

On the Republican side, Byron Donalds emerged as the nominee for governor and immediately did something I wish more politicians would do after a primary: He stopped fighting yesterday’s battle. He thanked his opponents, talked about bringing Republicans back together and turned his attention to November. “Tonight, the primary is over,” Donalds told supporters. “Tonight, we put aside our differences. Tonight, we are one united Republican Party.” There you go.

Republicans can disagree during a primary. They should disagree. That’s the point of having one. But eventually somebody wins, somebody loses, and if you intend to govern, you had better remember that the people on the other side of your intraparty fight aren’t suddenly your mortal enemies.

Then Donalds laid out something else that apparently causes palpitations in certain quarters: He wants Floridians to be able to see how their government spends their money. Every contract. Every budget. Every fee. Online. Where taxpayers can see it.

He also promised to continue the government-efficiency effort begun under Gov. Ron DeSantis and take it into local governments and state agencies. “There will be no sacred cows,” Donalds said.

Now why should that frighten anybody? If government is spending your money wisely, show us. If a contract is necessary, show us. If taxpayers are getting their money’s worth, congratulations. Put it online and brag about it.

Transparency should be the least controversial idea in government. Yet somehow the moment somebody announces that they’re going to start opening the books, certain people begin behaving as though Dracula just heard somebody mention sunrise.

But the more entertaining political story came from the Democrats. Angie Nixon pulled off the upset and defeated Alexander Vindman for the Democratic Senate nomination.

Those of you who listened to Rush will remember how much fun Rush had with Vindman during the first Trump impeachment drama. Vindman became one of the great heroic figures of the anti-Trump resistance, treated by much of the media as though he had descended from the mountaintop carrying the foreign-policy tablets.

And now, after entering this race with considerably more national recognition and money, Vindman lost a Democratic primary to a candidate who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America.

And Nixon has already supplied Republicans with enough material to keep opposition researchers on vacation. One of the clips we played Wednesday featured Nixon explaining that she has taken her children to drag shows.

“It’s fun,” she said. “It’s entertainment. It’s wholesome entertainment.”

Wholesome. That ought to be an interesting word in the Florida Senate campaign. She has also said she does not support sending money or weapons to Israel “at this moment” and called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. Now we’re going to see what Florida voters think. And that is precisely what elections are for.

The contrast between the two Florida races is striking. Republicans nominated Donalds, who is promising government transparency, spending scrutiny and continuity with much of the DeSantis governing model. Democrats produced an upset by a candidate aligned with the socialist left who is already staking out positions that will give voters a very different choice.

Nobody can complain that the differences aren’t clear. But one of the most interesting moments of Wednesday’s show wasn’t about Florida at all. It came from Ro Khanna.

I have spent a long time studying politics and history, and every once in a while you hear something that makes you stop and say: Wait a minute. Did he really just say that? Khanna was discussing Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal when he pointed to the racial exclusions built into early Social Security. He noted that agricultural and domestic workers — occupations containing large numbers of Black workers, particularly in the South — were excluded from the original system. Then he made an even more provocative observation.

“He purposely set Social Security at 65, knowing that Black life expectancy was 59,” Khanna said, arguing that these compromises were necessary for Roosevelt to obtain Southern political support for social reform.

That caught my attention. For generations, Americans have been given a remarkably polished version of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt is rightly remembered for important work on civil rights, but FDR himself has largely escaped the kind of scrutiny applied to other presidents when we discuss race.

Woodrow Wilson’s record has received considerably more attention, and deservedly so.

But the New Deal coalition depended heavily on segregationist Southern Democrats, and that political reality affected policy.

The Democratic Party spends an extraordinary amount of time lecturing modern America about “systemic racism.” Yet when you start examining some of the federal systems Democrats still celebrate as their greatest achievements, suddenly the history becomes considerably more complicated.

Maybe we should actually teach all of it. Not the Republican version. Not the Democratic version. The history. Let the chips fall where they may.

And speaking of government programs that are supposedly designed for your own good, California once again stepped forward and said, “Hold my organic kombucha.” California regulators approved efficiency standards for replacement tires that, once fully implemented, are expected to eliminate a huge portion of tires currently sold in the state from the marketplace.

Naturally, we’re told this is going to save consumers money. Of course it is.

Government is going to restrict what you can buy, manufacturers warn that compliance could increase costs, and somehow this will all eventually save you money.

We’ve heard variations of this movie before.

The justification involves rolling resistance. More efficient tires can reduce the amount of energy required to move a vehicle, potentially saving gasoline or electricity.

Fine.

But here’s the question government regulators too often treat as an annoying technicality: What is it going to cost the person buying the tires? Because working people don’t purchase regulations in theoretical economic models. They walk into a tire shop with four worn-out tires and a checking account.

They have rent. They have groceries. They have insurance. They have children. And now government has decided that the tires they might otherwise have purchased aren’t sufficiently efficient.

This is where modern government so often loses contact with the people it claims to be helping. Every regulation sounds wonderful when described by the people writing it.

Efficiency! Climate! Savings! Progress! Then somebody who works for a living gets the bill.

That was the thread running through Wednesday’s Rush Hour for me.

Florida voters are deciding what kind of government they want. Democrats are wrestling with an increasingly assertive socialist wing. Republicans are debating how aggressively to scrutinize government spending. We’re still discovering uncomfortable truths about programs created nearly a century ago. And California is busy deciding which tires people should be permitted to buy.

Different stories, same fundamental question: Who gets to make the decisions in your life?

The voter? The taxpayer? The parent? Or somebody sitting on a commission who has decided that he knows what’s best for you?

I know where I come down.

And there was plenty more in Wednesday’s fastest hour in American media — including more from Angie Nixon, the fascinating political fallout from Florida’s primaries, Donalds turning immediately toward the general election, and several moments that are considerably funnier when you actually hear them than when I try to explain them on a page.

Especially when Carlos starts looking at me like I’m about to get us both in trouble.

That’s why the written wrap can give you the story, but it can’t quite give you Rush Hour.

For that, you’ve got to hear the show.

Rush Hour airs Monday through Friday and moves quickly through the day’s hottest political stories, breaking developments and media absurdities. It is the fastest hour in American media because there is always more happening than the legacy media has time—or desire—to explain.

And if you want my daily stack of news and commentary delivered directly to you, sign up for The Daily BS here. It is free, arrives daily and, unlike a New York Democratic event, questions are not removed for exceeding ideological capacity.