Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

U.S. Military Prepared To Strike Iran; Do We Still Need An Equal Time Rule? Illinois Senate Candidate Juliana Stratton's New Ad Full Of F-Bombs. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired February 21, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Who works to make this space special on Saturday mornings. A place where you'll see stories, as I say every morning, that you will see nowhere else. And thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump at the crossroads. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

The president can either cut a deal to curb Iran's nuclear program or launch a war. The U.S. military continues to deploy ships and aircraft to nearby waters in what appears to be the largest military buildup since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On Friday, the USS Gerald Ford sailed into the Mediterranean, further escalating tensions as American and Iranian envoys continued to negotiate. Iran preparing a new draft proposal after nuclear talks with the U.S. Iran's foreign minister optimistic about a deal.

He told MS (ph) now they're hoping to hand over the proposal to President Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff soon. He also said the U.S. has not asked Iran to halt uranium enrichment and that Tehran has not offered to suspend it voluntarily. President Trump warns that he's considering limited strikes on Iran to pressure the country and into a deal. He's insisted that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, but has not said what precisely his objectives would be if he ordered a strike but gave a stark warning to Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any message to the Iranian people?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iranian people? In Iran or --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

TRUMP: -- people here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People in Iran?

TRUMP: They better negotiate a fair deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Potential attack plans presented to the White House range from quick strikes to more extensive operations that could last weeks. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has blocked a request from President Trump to allow U.S. forces to use U.K. air bases during any preemptive attack on Iran, saying that it could break international law.

As escalations continue, satellite images show that Iran is fortifying several of its nuclear facilities using concrete and large amounts of soil to bury key sites. Joining me now to discuss all this, CNN Political and National Security Analyst David Sanger and senior military analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, let me begin with you. Tell me about the firepower that we've assembled in the Middle East.

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: You started with a comparison to 2003. It's also like 1990 Persian Gulf War One. This is a huge amount of U.S. firepower, and let's kind of do it from the outside in, if you will. And concentric rings descending like Dante's Inferno. On the outer rings are big strategic bombers they can come all the way from the United States.

They can operate from other bases. But at distance inside are the two aircraft carriers. One you see there on the screen, it's in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The other one is going to park right against Israel, where you see the word Syria on that chart. So now you've got two axes.

These are 80 combat aircraft, each with F35s, our most advanced jets, as well as plenty of FNA 18 Hornets. And then you go inside that, you've got the capacity to launch Tomahawk missiles. You can send drones in, you can use cyber. And of course, there's land based aircraft, Air Force aircraft at many of those bases you show there.

So again, think of it like Dante's Inferno descending right in the center of it, at the very bottom is Ayatollah Khamenei. I agree with President Trump, he would be wise to negotiate.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, you've written, rarely in modern times has the United States prepared to conduct a major act of war with so little explanation and so little public debate. Expand on that, please.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Michael, as we've heard from the admiral, there's a huge amount of firepower out there, but it's not clear toward what end. So the president has really laid out four different objectives at various points. One is halt the nuclear program. It's interesting because he said he had obliterated the major nuclear sites before. The Iranians are not enriching uranium right now. But I agree with the admiral, this would be a superb moment backed up by all this gunboat diplomacy to negotiate something that would be long lasting. But he's also talked about protecting the protesters. He's talked about making sure that Iran does not support terrorism. It doesn't have very much money to go do so right now, but it certainly has in the past. And of course, he's talked about eliminating those missiles that the Israelis are worried about, conventional missiles that can reach Israel.

[09:05:06]

And he's not given a speech to lay out what his objectives are. He's not answered the question of whether or not he's really seeking regime change. And since we're not going to put troops on the ground, he's been pretty clear about that. If you did topple the regime, there's very little control to make sure that what came in would actually be a democratic state, you know, it could well be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps taking control. We tried a coup in Iran in 1953, and Iranians, you know, still learn about this in school every day. And there is the possibility that this then has a backlash against the U.S. rather than against the Ayatollah.

SMERCONISH: Admiral, you're the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. What's the role of NATO? What's the role of our allies? I made reference to Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, in my setup. Are we going it alone?

STAVRIDIS: Not quite alone. We have one big ally. We have the biggest aircraft carrier in the region. It's called the State of Israel. So that ally alone brings quite a bit of firepower.

And by the way, the Israelis bring not only the same kind of conventional capability, Precision guided weapons, F-35s, much of it purchased from us, but they also bring very significant cyber capability. They're among the very best in the world. They have the best Special Forces in the region. They have incredible intelligence. So I think in terms of allies, it really Israel.

The Europeans are going to kind of lean back from this. I'm disappointed that the British Prime Minister would not evidently allow us to use British facilities. He's talking about Diego Garcia, the island in the Indian Ocean. But believe me, we have all the capability in the world to get this done between ourselves and the Israelis.

Final thought, Michael, and picking up David's point of objectives, another way to think of it is what are the military options the president has? He can go non kinetic. He can use cyber directed energy, information warfare. Second option, the one he's talking about, kind of limited precision guided strikes, maybe go after leadership, Revolutionary Guard leaders. That would be a campaign of a few days.

Number three, he could go big with the forces he's got there. You mentioned 2003. We talk about those campaigns as shock and awe. I don't think we're headed there, but that would be a campaign of some number of weeks to really cripple, more or less permanently, the Iranian military industrial complex.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, you know the president well. You've covered him extensively. You were part of that New York Times group that spent three hours with him in the Oval Office recently, so I put my unusual question to you. Should the Ayatollah be nervous that the administration just lost the tariff battle in the Supreme Court?

SANGER: Well, you can certainly argue that the president is probably feeling right now the first pushback on his powers that he's felt really in the first year of his presidency. For the first time, the courts have sort of come in a big way and said this is not within the powers of the presidency unless the tariffs that he imposed were not legal. And he may well want to push back by showing that he can operate in an area where the Constitution gives him an enormous amount of leeway. But even here, the interesting question is this would clearly be an act of war. I mean, the way you test it is if somebody mass this kind of force off the United States and threatened to conduct this, we would consider that a potential act of war.

And yet Congress has not issued either an authorization to use military force, as they did in the case of Iraq, or passed a war resolution. And, you know, what did the president tell us in that interview? Asked whether there were any limits on his power, he said, really, only my own morality. That's the only limit that I have.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, Admiral Stavridis, we appreciate you both.

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, follow me on X. I wonder how the MAGA movement feel about the concept of Trump's seeming interest in attacking Iran, potentially starting another war after promising to end the same.

I think we're going to learn some things Tuesday night, right? I mean, I've got to believe that this is going to be a significant part of the State of the Union address. Who knows if something happens between now and Tuesday? But I look forward to the president making his case because as chairman, just suggested by David Sanger and Admiral Stavridis, we're really not sure on what basis he's proceeding.

[09:10:09]

And by the way, to the extent that the basis on which he's proceeding is nuclear, it would be an admission of source -- of sorts that last was it June? We didn't obliterate their program. So please, Mr. President, make the case, is what I'm saying.

In a six to three opinion handed down yesterday, of course, you know this, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's tariffs. While the President has been given authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies, it is not of the power, as the court puts it, to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope. The court, however, did not say what to do with the estimated 200 billion that's already been collected. Which leads me today's poll question at smerconish.com who should get that tariff money? Should it be the importers who paid it, the consumers who bore the cost, the U.S. Treasury, or perhaps you've not yet formed an opinion.

Up ahead, Stephen Colbert claims that President Trump's FCC is behind the CBS decision not to air an interview that he did with a Democratic Senate candidate. But did the FCC and CBS really censor him? Is an equal time rule still necessary?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT" HOST: Sir, you're chairman of the FCC, so FCC you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:36]

SMERCONISH: Question, should license broadcast, radio and television stations have to give equal time to competing political candidates? That's the question behind this week's kerfuffle with Stephen Colbert. By now, you know, that Colbert interviewed James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate from Texas, but aired the interview on YouTube, not on his CBS program. Texas is a midterm battleground. The primary is just 10 days away on March 3, and early voting has already begun.

The Democrats are hoping to flip the seat presently held by Republican John Cornyn. Their two top candidates are U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett and Talarico, who is a state representative. The polls suggest that it could go either way. On Monday, Colbert said CBS stopped him from showing the interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Not so fast, said CBS the following day. They claimed that Colbert was given legal advice but not prohibited from broadcasting the interview. CBS explained that they were providing legal guidance out of a concern that the interview could trigger the FCC equal time rule, which would mean that Colbert might have to provide equivalent access to competing candidates. So "The Late Show," not the network, decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel. And that's because the equal time provision only applies to broadcast television and AM FM radio, not to cable channels, not to streaming, not to podcasts, not to newspaper, not to satellite radio.

This wasn't over. Colbert took to the air that night. He criticized CBS and its statement, which he crumpled up and put in a bag that one uses for dog droppings. He said the FCC was behind this and that he was surprised that CBS wasn't standing up to the bullies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLBERT: Let's just call this what it is. Donald Trump's administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on T.V. because all Trump does is watch T.V.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Except that Trump and his administration hadn't silenced anyone. Nor, apparently, had Colbert's bosses. True that the FCC, under its chair, Brendan Carr, has been ratcheting up enforcement of the equal time rule. Recently, the FCC opened an investigation into ABC's "The View" for a potential equal time violation. Carr noted on Wednesday that the equal time rule would apply across the board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES: The whole idea here is more speech, not less. If you're going to have a legally qualified candidate on, you have to give comparable time and airtime to all other legally qualified candidates and we're going to apply that law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The underlying premise of the equal time rule was broadcast spectrum scarcity, born of an era long before the consumer choice that we have today. Over the years there have been many exemptions carved out to the equal time rule. So many that it's easy to forget it still exists. But the nearly century old regulation is still on the books. This is similar to but different from the Fairness Doctrine, though they're often confused.

Equal time applies to candidates. The Fairness Doctrine applies to issues. It required those with a broadcast license to provide contrasting views when important and controversial public issues were discussed on air. The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987.

Ironically, the Talarico interview has gotten far more attention on YouTube than it probably would have if it had run on "The Late Show." It's estimated that it's received 85 million views on YouTube and social media. And his team claims, the Talarico team, that they've raised 2.5 million as a result. For that matter, it's given Colbert show, which has been losing reportedly between 40 to 50 million annually and is going off air on May 21, a prominence that it hasn't enjoyed in a while.

My question in a world of so much media choice, do we still need an equal time rule? Here to discuss radio and T.V. host Stephanie Miller. "The Stephanie Miller Show" is heard nationally on satellite and terrestrial radio. It's simulcast on free speech T.V., reaching more than 6 million listeners and viewers weekly.

Stephanie, thank you so much for being here. Critics of the FCC's car, they fear that they this is going to chill speech. He says it's the opposite. You'll have to put on more candidates. Where do you come out? STEPHANIE MILLER, HOST, "THE STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW": First of all, thank you for having me. I'm on my way to my bike club. I'm on the Olympic cycling -- winter cycling team. So I'll be leaving for Italy right after this and there's no one to fact check me in no equal time.

[09:20:00]

Michael, this is so clearly to me, you know, CBS obeying in advance, as they say in fascism, they're obviously bending the knee. Clearly, you know, I believe what Colbert is saying and I think you and I -- listen, I look forward to them having to give me the same number of radio stations Sean Hannity has. And I know Sean would be excited about that as well.

SMERCONISH: OK, so you bring up something interesting which is that I note the equal time rule applies to broadcast television and radio. And it seems like all of this conversation has been about television. Be careful what you wish for because the Sean Hannity's of the world could be subject, maybe not by Brendan Carr, but could be subject to the same sort of requirements. Do they want that?

MILLER: Oh, I look forward to him having Jasmine Crockett as a co-host every day. Let me take some equal time to say go, Jasmine Crockett.

Michael, you know, can I just say, not you, but the mainstream media is one of the reasons we are where we are. I agree with Representative Ted Lieu, our representative out here. I invite the media to look at the very serious allegations that the president raped children and threatened to kill them in the Epstein files in the up to a million times, if you're listening to some estimates, he's in the Epstein files. I look forward to the media covering Elon Musk's election fraud in Georgia that they just discovered. I look forward to, you know, them pressing the president, how he's going to pay back us taxpayers for the all the tariffs the last year.

This is CBS, this is fascism, Michael. They are bending the knee. They are obeying in advance and that's all this is.

SMERCONISH: OK, But I have to take issue with that because I thought Colbert mischaracterized it because by my reading and my setup, Colbert was told, hey, you might trigger an equal time requirement here, so be careful in how you approach. And then he went on air. I want to ask you a bigger picture question. Do we need the FCC playing this role? Isn't this a dated concept?

You have so much choice. It's the free market. Go listen to Stephanie Miller. Go listen to Hannity. Go watch Colbert. Give Smerconish some play.

MILLER: Michael, you know, I think Stephen's point is that no one should be telling you or I or Stephen Colbert who they can have on and, you know, who they must. You know, listen, someone obviously blackmailed you into having me on, so I'm happy about that. But "The View," for instance, Michael, it's a show that talks about the news that is famous for having all different points of view. They always have a conservative and you know, on and on. So this is just an area the FCC should not be in.

SMERCONISH: OK. Well, then are we in agreement that the market can sort this out and that the equal time rule should go the way of the Fairness Doctrine?

MILLER: Yes, well, yes, I mean, the problem is, like I say, you know, people tell me, quite honestly, Michael, and you know, the radio business, that if I went back to my Republican roots, as you know, my dad ran with Goldwater in 1964, they said you would have 500 stations tomorrow. Progressive radio is on this teeny amount of stations because they're largely owned by conservatives. And you know, that all of this opened the door to Rush Limbaugh and the Sean Hannity's of the world that have 500 stations, they have a much bigger megaphone and unfortunately they generally broadcast a lot of lies. They just do. They parrot whatever Donald Trump says.

SMERCONISH: OK, but we don't want the government putting its thumb on the scale and saying, therefore you need to put on candidate X or candidate Y. I mean, I've just given you the opportunity to say what you just said. A lot of -- a lot of powerful things, right, about political -- people you don't agree with politically. So, OK, I guess they can now go on their shows and they can respond or they'll come on my show and respond, but we don't want the FCC --

MILLER: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- having to step in and do it. I thank God for satellite radio --

MILLER: That's right.

SMERCONISH: -- because I don't have to worry if somebody's going to drop the F bomb, you know, like, big effing deal if they do.

MILLER: Yeah.

SMERCONISH: Final thought, yours.

MILLER: Well, I do because I'm on Sirius XM and regular stations, so I do have to worry about. Yes, I only want the government putting its finger on the scale for me personally, Michael. That's the selfishness of the Trump administration --

SMERCONISH: I understand.

MILLER: -- is all about me, Michael. But no, you are absolutely right, government should not be in this -- the FCC should not be in this. I wish I could say an F bomb right now.

SMERCONISH: Stephanie, in your heart, you know, he was right. Thank you for being here.

MILLER: You know --

SMERCONISH: Appreciate it.

MILLER: -- you know, Goldwater was right, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Right. There you go.

What are you saying on social media? In the world of X, what do we have? Follow me on X and subscribe to my YouTube channel and maybe I'll be reading your comment.

Mac, it doesn't really matter when 80 to 90 percent of all public broadcasting is so politically biased it's unwatchable for half the country. Well, that's a sad commentary. I don't know that I can take issue with it entirely. I would like to think that I'm not in that biased category that you're referring to, but it's a dated concept.

[09:25:00]

Listen, when I was cutting my teeth in the world of talk radio, which was in the early 1990s, the fairness doctrine had just gone away and were still honoring it, I can remember being told, if you're going to cover this controversial issue, you've got to present both sides. And if you're going to put on a candidate, this is now equal time, then you've got to bring on their competitor. That's kind of naturally the way that I roll. I just don't think that government should be telling you that's what you've got to do. And I made a point earlier with Stephanie that I want everybody to focus on.

All of this conversation has been on television so far and these progressive programs that better put on competing candidates. But that logic would also apply to the conservative echo chamber and talk radio. So look out, because if you're -- if it's going to be good for the goose, it's going to be good for the gander. I say we don't need the rule.

Donald Trump was not happy yesterday. The president responding to the six to three Supreme Court decision striking down his tariffs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: OK. So I heard him say that in real time and I thought that is the poll question. What should happen to the tariff money already collected, estimated at over $200 billion? Go to smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question. Who should get it?

The importers who paid it? The consumers who bore the cost? The U.S. Treasury or perhaps you don't know, which is fine.

Still to come, your social media reaction and F bomb after F bomb dumped on President Trump in a brand new campaign ad in Illinois. It's just the latest escalation in the use of political profanity. Is it authentic, is it relatable, or is it just coarse and over the top? Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question, check out what our newest illustrator, Eric Allie sketched. And then channeling a similar approach, Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:47]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel. It's free. And then maybe I'll read your comment during the course of the show.

Bobby, the way people get their news today is different than in the last. Back when there were only three networks it mattered but with streaming and podcasts et cetera doesn't really matter, this is on the equal time rule, especially during the primaries.

Right -- that's -- that's entirely my point. Bobby, I'm going to date myself. But when I got started in talk radio, you know, there were three channels on UHF and three channels on VHF. I never got straight which they were, you know, UHF versus VHF. And we also pulled channel nine in my house. But pre-internet, pre-satellite radio, pre-choice, now we have so much choice.

The whole premise of the equal time rule was scarcity which was the idea. There's only limited bandwidth. And if you allow broadcasters to put their thumb on the scale then it's going to influence elections. I think those days are over. And I've already said that I don't think we need an equal time rule any longer and Congress ought to get it off the books.

More social media reaction to today's program. What do we have? Weird how there's no equal time expectation for talk radio, aint it?

Well, theoretically there is, right? I mean there is because the equal time rule applies to broadcast television and radio. That's the point that I was just making.

If you're going to enforce against Colbert and you're going to enforce against "The View," are you similarly going to take a look at the talk radio spectrum which is dominated by conservatives? And by the way, for good reason -- for good reason, because when Rush came on the scene, the media was largely a left of center place, and he rolled out the red carpet for conservatives and the rest is history and then Fox News took a page out of that book.

More social media reaction. What do we have? Love being able to cover a lot of these.

The U.S. treasury is keeping the money, the SCOTUS did not order any refunds. Are you trying to confuse your far-left audience?

By the way, Christopher, I take it you must be a far-lefty because you're not only watching you took the time to send me a social media reaction. So, what does that say about you? Now, to the serious point. You're acting as if by omission the court said, well, just leave it with the treasury. No, they didn't want to -- they didn't want to have to deal with the issue because the issue is so complicated.

Justice Kavanaugh said, look, this whole -- in fact, do we have that? Can you put that up on the screen from the Kavanaugh dissent? Justice Kavanaugh said, as was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a mess.

And that's why I'm asking in today's poll question, exactly what should happen to the funds because it's entirely unclear. One other observation -- can I make this point about the tariff -- actually, can I say something else, Catherine, before we get to that? Because I'm dying to make this point.

I was watching in real time all the coverage, as I'm sure you were yesterday, of this enormous defeat for the Trump administration, right? That's the way that it was cast. And it sure as hell wasn't a victory. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.

But I heard so much doom and gloom yesterday about what a devastating blow this is to the administration and potentially to the economy. And there was a juxtaposition because on the screen was also the market.

[09:35:03]

And what was the market doing? The market was up yesterday which said to me, you know, that the Wall Street folks had to have known, I figured, I knew, he was going to lose this one. But not only did they figure that they knew this was coming but they factored it in. And economically speaking, it didn't do any harm to the markets. I just -- I hadn't heard that point made yesterday and I think it needs to be.

OK. Here's your poll question. Who should get the tariff money, the importers who paid it, although that could be a windfall for them, right, if -- because if they passed on the cost and now they pocket it, that doesn't seem fair to me. The consumers who bore the cost, is it possible that that could be sorted out? You would hope in a technology -- a technological world it could. The treasury, I know you're not going to vote for that, but give it serious consideration because we're $38 trillion in debt. Or maybe you just don't know.

Still to come, U.S. Senate hopeful Juliana Stratton letting the expletives fly in a new campaign ad spelling out what she and her supporters really think about President Trump. Is this going to work?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SMERCONISH: It's just the latest in an escalating trend, the use of profanity for political purposes. But is it a winning strategy or will it backfire?

Sign up for my newsletter at Smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question. You'll get the work of illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:52]

SMERCONISH: The F-bombs are flying and politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be embracing profanity. The latest example, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton running for Senate. Check out her new ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump, vote Juliana.

LT. GOV. JULIANA STRATTON (D-IL): They said it not me. I'm Juliana Stratton and I'm proud to have lived my whole life on the south side of Chicago. I'm not scared of a wannabe dictator. I'm running for Senate to stand up to Donald Trump.

I'll abolish ICE and hold Trump accountable for the crimes he's committed, just like they said --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump.

GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): Vote Juliana.

STRATTON: That's why I approve this message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The F Trump campaign spot getting attention, which is what she wanted. If you notice, Stratton does not take part in the cursing. Although Senator Tammy Duckworth does. Governor J.B. Pritzker did not use the expletive, but he's standing there at the end.

It's unclear how effective the ad will be in luring potential voters. Some Democratic strategists have pushed the party to curse more as a way to come across as more relatable. It's not just Democrats who are swearing. This is the latest escalation in the use of colorful language.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) they're doing. Do you understand that?

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's so much about this moment that is trying to make people feel like they've lost their minds. When, in fact, these (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are crazy.

MAYOR JACOB FREY (D), MINNEAPOLIS: I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) out of Minneapolis.

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris. As I've said before and will say again, we are done with that (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): This president has a habit of doubling down on (EXPLETIVE DELETED) ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Both parties at the highest levels now casually using words that were once off limits in public. Such words were considered not just offensive, but low class, used by people who didn't know how to express themselves properly.

Now, it seems like politicians are afraid they won't be heard over all the heated rhetoric if they don't swear like sailors. Some may think they're just keeping up with the times. Rough times call for rough language, but many others are turned off by the coarseness.

Joining me now to discuss is Benjamin Bergen, professor of Cognitive Science at UC San Diego. He directs the language and cognition laboratory. And he's also the author of "What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves." Professor, has the F-bomb lost its sting?

BENJAMIN BERGEN, PROFESSOR OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE, UC SAN DIEGO: It has. Over the last 15 to 20 years, we've seen its use increase in public media pretty radically. And as a consequence, people judge it to be far less offensive than it used to be.

SMERCONISH: Let's talk about the science of swearing. Describe for me the physiological effects when one swears.

BERGEN: When you swear there's this suite of reactions. There's a release of adrenaline, blood flows to the extremities, your pupils dilate, and it's very much like a fight or flight response.

SMERCONISH: How about the social effects?

BERGEN: Well, people have judgments about others who swear. There are some that are positive, some that are negative. On the positive side, people tend to think that those who swear are more honest, they're giving their genuine impressions. On the negative side they're the judgments that you mentioned earlier, less education, less intelligence. These aren't necessarily true, but they are the judgments that people bring to bear.

SMERCONISH: So from reading your work, I think, I've learned that if I swear it may enhance my endurance. It may enhance my strength. Explain.

BERGEN: That's -- that's right. This is not work that I've conducted, but that I reported on. It appears that people's grip strength, when measured during swearing, increases by about five percent. They can also generate more wattage on a treadmill and they can endure pain.

[09:45:04]

So, using a task where people stick their hands into cold water, they can endure it about 50 percent longer if they're swearing than if they're not. So, there are physiological consequences for sure.

SMERCONISH: OK. So you know, in the summertime, you're jumping into a freezing swimming pool and you curse on your way in, or into the ocean, it's going to actually help you sustain that transfer of temperature.

BERGEN: It has a hypoalgesic effect. So, you also feel as though it's less painful if you're swearing.

SMERCONISH: Tell me about the flipping of the coin in the Netherlands Cliff Note version.

BERGEN: Well, it turns out that although people think that those who swear are telling the truth, it may not actually be the case. So, people who report swearing frequently are actually more likely to lie about the outcome of a coin flip if the result is that they report is beneficial to them financially. So, there's a little bit of uncertain evidence about the nature of swearing and truth.

SMERCONISH: OK. Who knew that there was so much research about swearing and that we would find the nation's foremost expert on the subject who's literally written a book called "What the F." Most important question, because you saw the montage, is this going to work? Do they come across as authentic, or do they come across as being, I don't know, inauthentic or reaching and trying to be become something that they really aren't?

BERGEN: One thing we know is that people's impressions of swearing depend on what they think about the message being conveyed with the swearing, or about the messenger who's delivering it.

So if the audience is people who are likely to endorse the position that the swearer is advocating, then it could be a quite effective strategy. But for people who already disagree, they're going to find just one more reason to disagree. They're going to target not just the content of the message, but also the form of the message. And that's going to be wrapped into the dialog about it. SMERCONISH: I feel like it's a -- to quote Potter Stewart, it's like pornography. I know it when I see it. Sometimes using profanity is effective and sometimes it isn't.

I quickly want to show you, grab the Biden clip please, and let's show this to the professor and remind everybody of what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama. This is a big (EXPLETIVE DELETED) deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: This is a big f-ing deal. That rang authentic to me, right? It was a hot mic. It's not like he was saying it for the world. I think he was just saying it to the president. Quick reaction from you.

BERGEN: There's a big difference between intentional and spontaneous uses of profanity. Once you see profanity in campaign ads you know that it's an intentional decision, strategically workshopped within a campaign, who's decided that this is going to attract attention and, of course, it has. And we're talking about the fact that it grabs attention.

That's different from what used to happen where politicians would swear behind closed doors. So the LBJ tapes full of profanity. We don't think that he was probably doing that for public consumption. And so, those kinds of profanity that happen behind closed doors are probably more revealing of true intent, true emotion, than the scripted stuff that we're getting nowadays.

SMERCONISH: Professor Bergen, that was great. Thank you so much for being here. Checking in now on social media reaction to the program. What do we have?

From the world of X. We're pretty liberal but these profanity laden political ads are unnecessary.

Yes, I thought it was over the top. I thought the whole F Trump thing was over the top. I thought that -- I mean when I go through them some of them I look at and I say, that was scripted and intended to come across as authentic but it has the opposite reaction at least -- Jacob Frey, I'll name names. When Frey says, you know, get the F out of Minneapolis. Scripted, impromptu -- not impromptu like Biden. Big f- ing deal.

And I feel like you have to evaluate each one of them on their own and know that which is real and that which is performative. That's the word I was struggling for, performative. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com.

Here it is. Who should get the tariff money, the importers who paid it, the consumers who bore the cost, the U.S. treasury, or perhaps you just haven't sorted it out? Subscribe to my newsletter when you're there. You're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:03]

SMERCONISH: So, more than 36,000 have now voted on the poll question today. That's a little dated, what I'm showing you, but I'm told that the margin is the same.

Who should get the tariff money? The 52 percent majority say the consumers who bore the cost.

I'm not surprised by that but -- I think Justice Kavanaugh is right in saying, it's a mess. Because if you're voting for consumers, and that's sort of the populist response, I get it. You're assuming that they bore the cost because that's the way I worded it. But what about a circumstance where the importer ate the cost?

And, by the way, I'm not advocating for giving it to the importer because to the extent the importer did pass on that cost, they'd be getting a windfall. If all of a sudden now a refund -- Kavanaugh is right, at least on that, it's a mess. It's a mess.

Here's an unpopular position. Let's just let the treasury keep it, because we're $38 trillion in debt.

[09:55:04]

Social media reaction. What else do we have? Wherever the illegally collected tariff money goes, reduction of the -- oh, OK. All right. Well, Darrel thank you. I mean that's the point I was just making.

Let's go to the next social media reaction. Now, you know that I don't see them.

There's no government enforceable equal time rule that could be effective in today's politics. We all gravitate toward the new sources that we want. We, the consumers, decide if we want or need equal time.

Steve, I completely agree with your observation. In the end, it's on us. In the end, it is on us. And it should be incumbent upon all of us to have a mixed media diet. Of course I want you watching CNN and I want you listening to me on SiriusXM. But my, God, use the clicker.

I don't go to bed without sampling all of the news and opinion that's all around me, because it's so easy to get bunkered into, you know, a silo of your choosing and think you're getting competing opinions when, in fact, you're not. So use the remote, except when I'm on air.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching and we'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)