The Dictatorship
The complicated political legacy of ‘Saturday Night Live’
In a book released next week, “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels addresses the show’s politics, saying “SNL” has never favored liberals or conservatives. “It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,” Michaels is quoted as saying in “Lorne: The Man Who Invented Saturday Night Live” by Susan Morrison. “We have our biases. We have our people we like better than others, but you can’t be Samantha Bee.”
Michaels’ insistence on impartiality will likely bring howls from conservatives, who have complained for decades that “SNL” has been a liberal viper pit, mocking right-wingers and taking it easy on the icons of the left.
‘It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,’ Michaels is quoted as saying.
In 2019, after the show ran a sketch satirizing one of his press conferences on border policy, President Donald Trump lashed out at its “Republican hit jobs,” vowing “retribution” for making fun of him. Over the years, conservatives have called for the show to be “put out of its misery” because of its political slant, suggesting the executive producer is either “stupid or a liar” for claiming the show is nonpolitical.
And progressives, of course, see “SNL” as their own playground. In a 2003 interview, then-head writer Tina Fey told a reporter“We have a liberal bias, obviously,” and her fellow progressives have never doubted her. This is why, when the show steps out of line and allows anti-woke celebrities like Shane Gillis to host, “SNL” fans react with horror — after Gillis’ hosting gig in 2024, one comedy writer said Michaels was “unfit … to run a major network show in 2024.”
“SNL” was forged in the post-Watergate leftism of the 1970s, an era when politicians were viewed with heightened scrutiny and distrust. Michaels and young progressive writers like Al Franken and Chevy Chase drove the show’s political conscience. Three days before the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, the show simply replayed the speech in which Ford announced he would be pardoning Richard Nixon, which Michaels later listed as one of his proudest moments as the producer of the legendary comedy show.
But despite “SNL’s” progressive roots, a full review of the show’s history (which I have undertaken as part of a two-year podcast project called “Wasn’t That Special”) uncovers some truly inspired moments of traditional political conservatism.
In the show’s first sketch after Trump’s election in 2016, comedian Dave Chappelle’s character attends an election night party filled with fellow progressives. As the sketch proceeds, Chappelle’s white, New York City-based friends grow increasingly incredulous as election night progresses and Trump keeps winning states. Chappelle’s character, by contrast, simply laughs at how naive his liberal friends had been throughout the election year.
To conservatives, the sketch was an admission by the show that it had been operating in a liberal bubble, unable to see why support for Trump had been growing over the past year.
Or take, for example, a 1990 “Weekend Update” desk bit in which Chris Rock complains both about how much he hates taxes and how he doesn’t mind if prisons are uncomfortable for the inmates. (“Jails are so nice, they come back twice. … They don’t have this problem in Iran because it’s hard to snatch another purse if you don’t have another hand.”) A year later, Rock returned to support the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing him only of the crime of using bad pickup lines in the workplace.
An array of recurring characters in the show have mocked progressive activism. Eddie Murphy played a recurring character named Tyrone Green (first introduced in the famous “Prose and Cons” short film), an illiterate, poetry-writing prisoner who was regularly feted by New York’s rich elite. The whole series of sketches, in which rich progressives are harshly lampooned, has a strong Tom Wolfe-ean “Radical Chic” vibe to it.
Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person.
The show also had a particular sore spot for public sector employees. In March 2001, Maya Rudolph portrayed a sassy postal worker who has no time for customers, lending comfort to those who think customer service improves when privatization reigns. In 2010, a brutal sketch featured the “Public Employee of the Year Awards,” in which government workers were given awards for being surly and amassing outlandish benefits packages.
Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person. But those who complain about Tina Fey’s broad Palin impersonation also fail to mention a sketch from 2008 in which editors at The New York Times try to enlist their newsroom’s reporters to spend six weeks in Alaska to cover the vice presidential nominee.
The sketch savages the newsroom, portraying reporters as naive Manhattan elites who had never seen the real America. The reporters, confused about Alaska culture, wonder how they will get around without being able to call a cab, worry about polar bear attacks, and mistake a photo of a snowmobile for a “baptizing machine.”
But perhaps one of the most observant political sketches in show history ran just before the presidential election in 2016, when actor Tom Hanks joined in a performance of “Black Jeopardy!” It is assumed that Hanks, playing a red-hatted MAGA enthusiast, will embarrass himself when posed with questions (or “answers,” in “Jeopardy!” style) meant for Black contestants. Yet everyone is shocked when Hanks’ answers comport perfectly with “Black culture,” crystallizing something that had yet to be put into words — politics is a horseshoe, and Trump supporters had more in common with Black Americans than we all thought. (For instance, Hanks’ character, Doug, downplays the importance of voting, saying the outcome of elections are decided months ahead of time, anyway.)
Of course, the show hands plenty of ammo to Republicans who argue the show is hopelessly biased in favor of Democrats. When Trump won, cast members Kate McKinnon, Cecily Strong and Sasheer Zamata all sang songs either bemoaning Clinton’s loss or mourning the end of the Barack Obama era.
But just a year earlier, “SNL” allowed Trump to host an episode while he was running for president. Trump hosted twice, eventually becoming the first president to have hosted the show. And who can forget the ratings-busting show when Palin finally showed up in Studio 8H? The New York Times even gave Palin a rave reviewcalling her “remarkable” and “delightful.”
Whatever your opinion of ‘SNL’s’ politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a pattern in how Republicans are depicted on the show versus Democrats. Generally, GOP politicians lampooned by the show fall into a few select categories: Palin (stupid), George W. Bush (stupid), Dick Cheney (old, evil), George H.W. Bush (old, clueless), Dan Quayle (stupid), Bob Dole (old, clueless) and Trump (clueless, old, evil). And yet, one of the show’s most inspired political sketches featured Phil Hartman playing Ronald Reagan as a secret genius, which suggests the show perhaps should have inverted the formula more often.
Meanwhile, the show has regularly depicted Democrats as being too brainy for the presidency (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). Of course, Bill Clinton got the full treatment once his priapic activities threatened his presidency; his travails were simply too juicy a target to ignore. (Even Monica Lewinsky made an appearance on the show, in 1999.)
Whatever your opinion of “SNL’s” politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed. “Democrats tend to take it personally; Republicans think it’s funny,” he said in 2014. We will know if that’s true in 2025 if Michaels avoids a Trump-mandated prison term.
The Dictatorship
Polymarket cuts ties with George Santos as regulators probe trades
NEW YORK (AP) — The online prediction platform Polymarket is ending its paid relationship with George Santos as federal regulators investigate whether the former congressman illegally bet against his own attendance at President Donald Trump’s State of the Union.
Santos placed the bets on another prediction marketplace, Kalshi, after publicly announcing his intention to be at the Feb. 24 speech, according to a person familiar with the investigation. He later blamed a delayed flight for missing the event.
The suspicious trades were detected by Kalshi and referred to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulator that has opened a probe into Santos for possible insider trading, according to a second person familiar with the investigation.
Both spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Santos was released from federal prison last October after Trump granted him clemency in a fraud case.
By the time of the State of the Union address, four months later, he was already working in an influencer capacity for Polymarket, using his substantial online platform to promote the controversial brand.
In response to an inquiry from the AP, a Polymarket spokesperson said the company was in the process of terminating the contract as a result of this week’s revelations.
Santos did not respond to phone calls and text messages from the AP. He wrote on social media Wednesday that the allegation was “preposterous,” adding that his legal team was in touch with the Justice Department.
On his podcast, “Doing Time with George Santos,” the former congressman has suggested that prediction markets are “easily manipulable,” and rife with abuse.
“There’s definitely some space for speculation. There will be investigations. There will be scrutiny,” he said in March. “I just want to make sure that people understand: It is not straightforward. It is not a crime to do prediction market. I don’t think people should be taking this seriously.”
The financial regulator overseeing prediction markets, meanwhile, has pledged to take the issue of insider trading “extremely seriously.”
“There is a myth in the mainstream media and social media that insider trading law doesn’t apply in the prediction markets. That is wrong,” David Miller, the director of enforcement at CFTC, said during a recent talk at New York Law School. “Insider trading in the prediction markets — where there is misappropriated information — is precisely the kind of serious violation that we are going after vigorously.”
That pledge comes as the Trump administration has thrown its support behind the prediction market operators and is actively suing states that have tried to regulate them. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has invested in Polymarket through his venture capital firm and is a strategic advisor for Kalshi. And the CFTC has faced allegations of maintaining a friendly posture toward the industry it is meant to regulate.
Still, some bets have not escaped federal scrutiny.
Last week, prosecutors charged a Google engineer who allegedly used the company’s 2025 “Year in Search” data, before it was published, to enter Polymarket wagers about the most searched people of last year.
A spokesperson for Polymarket said the company had worked closely with the CFTC, along with federal prosecutors, ahead of the insider trading charges.
Experts said Santos’s own alleged actions didn’t appear to meet the same threshold for insider trading, since they would not have been based on stolen information. But the bets — coupled with his public statements — may run afoul of other financial laws.
“What he’s accused of sounds a lot more like market manipulation than insider trading,” said Todd Phillips, the director at Klaros Group and a former Georgia State University professor who has written extensively about prediction market regulation.
The federal regulator could also bring a civil action against Santos, potentially resulting in a steep fine and a ban from trading, he noted. But the rapid rise of online betting platforms has meant there are few similar cases to draw from.
“We didn’t have examples of people trading on contracts involving themselves. That is new, and it allows people to change their behavior in order to profit,” Phillips said. “Until pretty recently, the question of George Santos being at the State of the Union was not something that had ever been traded before.”
___
Associated Press reporter Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report
The Dictatorship
USTR proposing new tariffs of at least 10% for most trading partners
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is in a hurry to rebuild the tariff wall the Supreme Court tore down less than four months ago.
The administration this week has proposed slapping double-digit tariffs on products from dozens of major U.S. trading partners after an investigation into imports of goods allegedly made with forced labor. And more tariffs are likely coming.
Under the proposal released in Washington late Tuesday, 16 economies — including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan and the United Kingdom — would face 10% levies for allegedly failing to enforce bans on forced labor. Another 44 trading partners — including China, Japan, India, South Korea and Switzerland — would be hit with 12.5% import taxes.
The tariffs are part of Trump’s push to replace revenue lost when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sweeping global tariffs he’d imposed last year. This latest barrage is likely to unsettle key trading partners that have been hit with waves of tariffs since Trump returned to the White House early last year.
“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.’’
Greer’s office said failure to prevent such imports is “unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.”
Trump’s tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who usually try to pass along those higher costs to customers.
The administration, mindful that Americans are growing increasingly unsettled by high prices with midterm elections just months away, said that it would limit the impact by exempting from the latest proposed tariffs a long list of products, including aircraft parts, food products (from coffee to beef) and rare earth minerals crucial in the production of smartphones and cars. Also spared would be products from Canada and Mexico covered by a North American trade pact.
The new tariffs would not take effect immediately. They are subject to public comment and review. Public hearings on the proposed duties are due to begin on July 7.
The plan drew immediate pushback. A Chinese government spokesperson denied the forced labor allegation and called for resolving economic issues through dialogue, saying a trade war doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.
“There is no such thing as forced labor in China, and we oppose using it as an excuse to engage in political manipulation,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in Beijing.
The U.S. has long said imports of goods that include material from China’s far-western Xinjiang are at risk of using forced labor. Beijing denies allegations of forced labor in the Muslim majority region.
But critics saw the proposed tariffs as a pretext to reinstate tariffs on dozens of countries across the globe that hadn’t passed legal muster.
“Accusing EU of not doing enough against forced labour is absurd,″ Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, posted on social media. “The EU has adopted the world’s most stringent rules against products made with forced labour. This looks very much like trying to make the facts fit a legal justification for tariffs that has already been decided.″
The new maneuver shows how determined the Trump administration is about keeping a wall of tariffs around the American economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.
In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose double-digit tariffs on almost every country on Earth last year. The justices struck down the tariffs and set the stage for companies who paid them to seek refunds.
After the loss in court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10% tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialized trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.
Trump’s tariffs have provided tens of billions of dollars in revenue for a federal government that persistently spends more than it collects in taxes. He had been counting on the IEEPA tariffs to make up for some of the revenue lost to his massive 2025 tax cuts.
But tariff collections have begun to fall since the legal defeats. They peaked at more than $31 billion last October but were down to $22 billion in both March and April of this year, according to the Treasury Department.
Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have vowed to replace the lost revenue. And they’ve turned to a legal authority that has withstood legal challenges in the past: Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term.
“What’s somewhat brilliant about this way of approaching 301 is that politically it’s very hard to argue that you shouldn’t go after forced labor and force countries to enforce forced labor laws on the books,’’ said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government will soon introduce legislation on forced labor in supply chains. “Canada has a very strong legislative regime against forced labor in supply chains,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa. “We don’t want any element of forced labor coming in goods and services, and we want to use our influence to eliminate this practice of forced labor and child labor.”
In its nearly 100-page report on forced labor, the USTR said that even if a country enforces a ban on forced labor domestically, importing goods made with forced labor violates the rules of fair trade.
Majerus expects to the new tariffs to be ready by the time the temporary ones expire next month. “The USTR is under enormous pressure to make sure there’s no gap (in tariff revenue), probably from the White House,’’ he said. ”I’m confident, based on the schedule they’re on now, that they will have these done and ready to implement.’’ He noted that the investigation on forced labor is “working at about two times the normal speed’’ of typical 301 cases.
The administration is also pursuing a Section 301 case into whether 16 U.S. trading partners (accounting for 70% of U.S. imports) — including China, the EU and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage.
And on Monday the administration proposed 25% Section 301 tariffs on Brazilcharging that the world’s 10th-biggest economy with “unreasonable’’ trade practices including lax anti-corruption enforcement and unfair tariffs of its own.
Tuesday’s report defined forced labor as “work or service exacted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”
It cited an estimate by the UN’s International Labor Organization that as of 2021, 27.6 million people were engaged in forced labor.
Rice imported from Myanmar, tobacco from Malawi, beef from Brazil, and cotton and polysilicon from China were among the many products it said are prone to involving forced labor.
___
Elaine Kurtenbach reported from Bangkok.
Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this story.
The Dictatorship
AP source says George Santos reported to prosecutors over suspicious Kalshi trades
NEW YORK (AP) — A prediction market reported former U.S. Rep. George Santos to federal prosecutors after he boasted he’d be going to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, then bet against his own attendance, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Kalshithe online prediction marketplace, referred Santos to the Department of Justice after detecting suspicious trades made by him ahead of Trump’s Feb. 24 speech, the person said. The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Kalshi also reported the trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulatory body that has vowed to crack down on insider trading in prediction marketplaces.
The Justice Department and the CFTC didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries from the AP.
Santos also did not respond to text messages or phone calls.
The referral was first reported by NPR. Santos told NPR that he wasn’t aware of the investigation. He declined to say whether he had a Kalshi account.
“I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no,” Santos told NPR.
The convicted ex-congressman had repeatedly discussed his intention to attend the State of the Union, which came just four months after he was granted clemency by Trump in a fraud case that led to his expulsion from the U.S. House.
On the eve of Trump’s speech, Kalshi put the odds of Santos attending at close to 75%.
Then, minutes into the speech, Santos posted on X that he had been waylaid at the airport. Immediately, several social media users accused him of running another scheme.
“Santos talking to his accountant and telling him to open his Kalshi account and bet all his money on No,” one user wrotealongside a meme of Al Pacino counting money in the movie Scarface.
In March, Santos addressed the complaints on his podcast.
“I guess people lost money,” he said. “Some people made unexpected money. That’s to show you how fragile these markets are.”
Santos, who won office as a Republican after inventing a bogus persona as a Wall Street dealmaker, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft in 2024.
After serving just 84 days, he was ordered released by Trump, who called Santos a “rogue” but said he didn’t deserve a harsh sentence and should get credit for voting Republican.
Prediction markets, including Kalshi and its chief rival Polymarket, have drawn scrutiny as their businesses have expanded — with some lawmakers urging the platforms to do more to guard against insider trading.
Both companies have said they are reporting suspicious trades to federal regulators. Some investigations have led to criminal charges. In April a soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged with using classified information to win more than $400,000 predicting the date of his capture on Polymarket.
In April, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to prevent its own members from using prediction markets.
___
The story has been updated to correct in the first sentence that Santos is a former congressman, not a current one.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words




