Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Do Democrats Need A "Sister Souljah" Moment Now?; U.S. Strikes Hit Iran For Seventh Consecutive Night. How Did Norway Become A Global Sporting Powerhouse? Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 18, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: But it did not work. The two stroke penalty stood. Bryson now in a tie for fifth at five under. He tees off a little later this morning, Danny, but man, you know, you rarely see something like that happen.

Bryson was not happy about it, but he did kind of step all over that long grass and push it down.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Listen, I just love that. I also play my golf balls from that area.

Andy Scholes, thanks so much. Appreciate you.

And thank you all for joining us This Morning. "Smerconish" starts right now.

[09:00:32]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Calling Sister Souljah. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

So where were you in 1992? Governor Bill Clinton was running for president, and by June, he was the presumptive Democratic nominee. But Democrats had lost three straight presidential elections, two of them in landslides. The party had a reputation problem. Soft on crime, captive to its special interest groups, out of step with the middle of the country.

So Clinton accepted an invitation to speak at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition Conference. Friendly territory. Jackson's own house. The day before the conference had featured a panel with rapper and activist Sister Soulja a month prior after the LA riots asked about Black on white violence during the unrest, she had said, and I'm quoting, "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill White people?"

Clinton went right at her. He said that her comments were filled with hatred. And then the line that everybody remembers, if you took the words white and black and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech. David Duke, the Klansman.

Reverend Jackson was furious. He said that soldier represented the hopes of an entire generation. He accused Clinton of staging it. And here's the thing, he was probably right.

Joan Didion was covering the Clinton campaign and reported that Clinton aides had tipped reporters in advance that the governor would use the Rainbow speech to demonstrate his independent independence from Jesse Jackson.

It was a calculated risk. Insult your host, anger a wing of your own base, and in so doing, send a signal to the middle of the country, I'm not captive to the extremes of my party. It worked. Clinton won in November. He ended a 12-year Democratic drought and the phrase entered the political lexicon.

A Sister Souljah moment. When a politician deliberately and publicly repudiates an extreme element of his or her own side.

Now, why am I telling you this? Because 34 years later, the Democratic Party faces a similar question. And nobody, it seems, wants to be the person to have a Sister Souljah moment. We've talked here about the present situation. Democratic socialists are on a hot streak, sweeping those three New York City primaries last month with the support of Mayor Mamdani.

And then in Denver, Democratic socialist Melat Kiros toppling Diana DeGette, a congresswoman first elected when Bill Clinton was president. It seems more than some fringe, right? It's a movement. They've got funding, organization, they've got momentum, and one that is giving pause to more traditional Democrats who see a party winning some battles but perhaps at the expense of the war.

Enter Bill Daley, my upcoming guest, son and brother of Chicago mayors, Commerce secretary under Clinton, White House chief of staff under Obama, establishment Democrat sent to us from central casting. He recently published in the Wall Street Journal an essay with a warning built right into the headline "Socialists Lead Democrats into Tea Party Trap."

Daley reminds us of the Tea Party's influence on the Republican Party in 2010. It electrified GOP primaries, toppled entrenched incumbents, generated enormous energy, but cost Republicans winnable Senate seats when its nominees prove too extreme for general electorates.

You remember Christine O'Donnell? 2010 she beat Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary, then lost the general to Chris Coons by 17 points, a seat that Castle almost certainly would have won. That same year, Sharron Angle won the Nevada primary, then lost to Harry Reid, a deeply unpopular incumbent considered politically dead.

In Colorado, Ken Buck edged out establishment pick and narrowly lost to Michael Bennet. And in Alaska, Joe Miller toppled Lisa Murkowski in the primary, only to lose her historic write in campaign in November. Two years later, the pattern repeated. It was Todd Akin's legitimate rape comment that sank him against Claire McCaskill in Missouri, a race that McCaskill helped engineer by spending money to boost Akin in the primary. And in Indiana, Richard Mourdock ousted sixth term incumbent Dick Lugar, then handed the seat to Democrat Joe Donnelly after his own comments about rape and pregnancy. The through line was this, purity won the primaries. Electability lost the generals. By some counts, the Tea Party cost Republicans five Senate seats or more and the majority itself. By this point in the 1992 cycle, Governor Clinton had already fought with organized labor. He fought with the Sierra Club, with the teachers unions, with his own coalition.

[09:05:05]

The head of the Arkansas AFL CIO accused his administration of union busting. And by the time that Clinton stood up at the Rainbow Coalition, he had years of centrist combat behind him. He called himself a different kind of Democrat, and he had the scars to prove it.

So that's the choice some say the Democratic Party is facing again, is confronting the socialist wing now a down payment on the general election or a down payment on your own defeat? Is the lesson of 1992 that the fight works, or is the lesson of 2010 that the establishment always thinks that it can win that fight right up until it loses?

And remember this important footnote. The Tea Party certainly cost Republicans congressional seats in 2010 and 2012, but it absolutely gave rise to the success of President Trump in 2016. For Democrats, we'll know what happens in 2028 and before then, it's anybody's guess.

Last week I spoke to Tad Devine, longtime Democratic political consultant, chief strategist for Bernie in 2016. His view, the Democratic Party needs to stop standing in the way of its primary voters. If they want Democratic socialism, then they should have it.

This week, a different perspective from another party stalwart, Bill Daley.

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here. How might Democratic socialists, I'll use your word, hijack the party?

WILLIAM DALEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: The same way the Tea Party people hijack the Republican Party? The Republican Party is very different today. Now, they intend, as you laid out, won a whole bunch of races. They then press Boehner and Cantor, who were the leaders of the House at the time, ended up beating Cantor and they hooked up with Donald Trump and they took over the Republican Party to the point where the Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, Lynne Cheney's, the Bushes, all basically were pushed out of the party. You've gone through the history of it.

So my fear, to be frank with you, I have no problem with the Socialist Party in the sense of they have every right in the world to run. There's a history in America of many different parties. The Socialist Party ran candidates for office, run national. Eugene Debs was their nominee for the -- for president and they have every right to. But to come in and try to hijack the party because very few people as we know, vote in a primary, either Democrat or Republican.

So the impact that sort of movement can have by coming into the Democratic Party as the Tea Party, which in my opinion, historically was more analogous to the John Birch Society party, that they took over the Republican Party. That this socialist party taking over the Democratic Party will fundamentally change it and make it very difficult to win in general elections. And in the end, that's how you govern, by winning a general election, not winning a primary.

SMERCONISH: OK. But what about the footnote to my recap of the Tea Party history, namely that in 2016, Donald Trump won the election and he was able to harness a lot of that energy.

DALEY: Yes. Well, look, I do believe this is a center left or center nation politically. So having a far left, I mean, look at every Democrat who's won, whether it was Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, they were center left. They were not left. You have a nominee that comes from a very small voter base in a primary that's basically a socialist party.

It gives Donald Trump or whoever follows him the opportunity to make the case that we are a bunch of socialists, communists, whatever he wants to call us, and not the Democratic Party that the American people have been supportive of over the elections that I just noted. Plus those at the local level who win the Josh Shapiros, JB Pritzkers, the Wes Moores, even the Gavin Newsoms in California, these are people who represent in the general election a broader base than just the far left socialist primary voters.

SMERCONISH: OK. So should Rahm Emanuel, should Josh Shapiro right now lay down a marker with these folks?

DALEY: Well, I think they have to be very strong in their differences with them. Look at the socialist winning of politics right now has driven or trying to drive a change in the Democratic Party's support of Israel. Now, I have lots of problems with Netanyahu and the government of Israel right now, but the fundamentally as the left is trying to drive a wedge between Democrats and Israel or American- Israel to the point that they are beyond just the Netanyahu government, in my opinion, is very damaging to our country and very damaging to the Democratic Party.

[09:10:00]

The other thing that you pick up right now from the far socialist group is they're now questioning whether Hakeem Jeffries, if we win the House in the fall, ought be to the speaker.

SMERCONISH: Right.

DALEY: Well, that's not my opinion.

SMERCONISH: So Tad Devine was here last week. He was chief strategist for Bernie in 2016. Here's the --

DALEY: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- counterpoint that he offers to you. We're going to roll the tape and then you can respond. Play it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAD DEVINE, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: You need to let the voters make the choice of who they want in that cycle.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, are today's fears in some parts of your party fears of Democratic socialists unwarranted?

DEVINE: I think they're totally unwarranted. I mean, listen, I understand the labels, and I see what the President is doing with communism, and I understand how people fear that.

Listen, if we go out and we talk to people about the core economic issues that are affecting them in their life right now, their wages, whether or not they can have health care that is affordable, whether or not we'll take on the urgent problems of our day, like climate change, we need to have a plan that makes sense in our times and for our future, for our children and grandchildren. So that's what the Democratic Party needs to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Mr. Secretary, respond to that with our final 60 seconds.

DALEY: You know, I know Tad well. I've known for 30 plus years. He was the chief strategist for Bernie Sanders, who has never been a Democrat, as he's been elected to the Senate for years. He ran as a Democrat, but he did lose. So the fact of the matter is Hillary Clinton won that primary and she did go on to lose.

But I think Tad brings a point the enthusiasm is good. But the fact of the matter is the Democrats have to stand up and say what they believe in and not be driven by a very small group of people who are just using the party right now to further their own positions, which have not been the traditional Democratic positions. Yes, around economics, we've always been trying to fight for the little guy and fight to make things more affordable, and that's our policy, and that's been the policy of the Democratic Party my entire life.

But to think that somehow --

SMERCONISH: Secretary --

DALEY: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Yes. Finish your thought. I'm sorry.

DALEY: Well, just somehow think that that wing of -- our wing of the party, which has been the Democratic Party, is somehow just out of fashion because a very small group of voters have finally decided to come into the party and try to take it over. I it's a mistake.

SMERCONISH: Secretary Bill Daley, thank you for your thoughts.

And everybody at home now the opportunity for you to weigh in on this. Go to my website, at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, do Democrats need a Sister Souljah break with Democratic socialists?

What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. This comes from Facebook.

That presupposes something negative about Democratic socialism and phrases the question in the form of a lie. You're usually better than this.

No, Karl, what I think I'm saying is that it carries baggage in certain quarters in the same way that Sister Souljah's comments carried, I'm not equating what she said relative to race with the position of the Democratic socialists, but I am saying each can be viewed. You heard Bill Daley, as being a liability for the party at large. So does a candidate like Rahm, like Josh, like JB Pritzker, somebody need right now to say here's the line in the sand. They're on one side of it and I'm on the other? That's what I'm asking. I think you get that.

Up ahead, the rhetoric escalating as the U.S. targets Iranian infrastructure and a new banner in Tehran, a series of them actually purportedly calling for blood for blood. Admiral James Stavridis joins me in just a moment.

And coming up after some could argue that the star of the World Cup was Erling Haaland, scoring seven goals and 22 million Instagram followers. He sure seemed to enjoy his time in the United States shopping for cowboy boots, taking home a taxidermy of a raccoon. Is there something to the way the Norwegian country develops their talent, frankly, in contrast to the way we do here in the United States? We'll get into that in a couple of minutes.

Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter. It's free and it's worthy. You'll get the work of illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:22]

SMERCONISH: A new banner displayed in Tehran, drawing attention. It purports to show President Trump and members of his family in coffins alongside the words blood for blood. The display comes as the U.S. carried out its seventh straight night of strikes against Iran, targeting not only military targets, but also bridges and other infrastructure in the country.

Joining us now is CNN senior military analyst, former supreme allied commander of NATO, retired Admiral James Stavridis.

Good morning, Admiral. Why would they poke the bear? Why would they have such displays in Tehran?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Because they hate us. And they hate us truly, deeply, madly. And they have for decades. But we have increased the level of hatred, if that were possible, by the start of the war, by taking out their supreme leader. He'd been running the country for almost four decades.

That's like Franklin Delano Roosevelt times four. We took out his wife, the supreme leaders, his grandchild, whose tiny coffin was displayed at the big funerals front and center. And so the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former supreme leader, we killed his family, his parents, his wife, I believe, at least one of his children. There's a lot of hatred to go around.

So there's a certain biblical and Koranic quality to this. Blood for blood, they say. We would say an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

SMERCONISH: Admiral, I said that infrastructure is among the latest targets. What would be the menu that you would be providing an American president right now if asked in terms of options?

[09:20:11]

STAVRIDIS: Brad Cooper, Admiral Brad Cooper, who's running this campaign, has done a masterful job of building those target sets, but so far it has not gotten the Iranians back to the table. So, you know, the old saying is when your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon everything looks like a nail. I think what we need to do is expand the menu, if you will. So I would advise let's go after more economic targets. Let's put more infrastructure pressure.

You're showing that now. I think cyber could be used more effectively. There might be a role for Special Forces, including with Israelis leadership targets. Overall, there's a wider set of targets here. But the bottom line is you have to take away the military capacity.

We've done a lot of that. But now it's time to expand that target set, go after economic targets.

Final thought. The risk in doing that, of course, is that the Iranians respond by going after economic targets in the Gulf States, putting more pressure on the global economy. Not a great set of options, but it's time to try something new to get them back to the table.

SMERCONISH: There's been so much conversation recently about the Strait of Hormuz, and yet I know that you're concerned about matters to the north, namely the Suez Canal. Explain.

STAVRIDIS: If you look at the Strait of Hormuz, which we've all been staring at with great rate fixation now for months, because that feels like the epicenter, there's another front in this war that could be opened. It is well to the west of the Strait of Hormuz. It's a place called the Bab al-Mandab. Don't worry, there's not a quiz later. It's at the bottom of the Red Sea, which means it's like a cork that closes, wait for it, the Suez Canal.

The Houthis, who are creatures of Iran, could be unleashed to attack shipping in that choke point. That is, if you will, the new Western front that I worry about. And if you've listened the last couple of days, Michael, you've heard Iranians talk about Houthis shutting down the Red Sea. That's a double whammy on the global economy. I'm sure the administration is concerned and mindful of that. SMERCONISH: I need to look at an atlas. I said to the north and you corrected me to the West.

Admiral, I'm looking at a headline, literally plucked from the newspaper today about Secretary Hegseth planning to screen all troops, including women, for low testosterone. I want to show you an editorial cartoon that was drawn from my newsletter by Jack Ohman. Your predecessor, the original supreme Allied commander of NATO's was General Eisenhower. You, of course, were the 16th supreme Allied commander. Hopefully you can look at that image that you've got.

Return, as we say. Talk to me about that.

STAVRIDIS: Well, first and foremost, pretty much the only thing I could recognize in that conversation is the fact of civilian authority over the military. That's a civilian Secretary of Defense in a suit telling Ike (ph) to go get a testosterone set. He would have probably obeyed that. Certainly obeyed it. He was famously scrupulous and abiding by civilian control.

But let's back up, Michael, does it make sense? I don't think so. When I look at the needs of the 21st century battlefield, sure, you need some big, burly, UFC like guys, maybe on the very front end of things. But who are the -- who are the killers at scale on these battlefields? They're destroyer captains, often women.

They're fighter pilots, often women. They're aircraft carrier commanders. Captains of aircraft carriers, recently, a woman. They are cyber warriors. They are drone warriors.

Believe me, Ukrainian women have probably put more Russians in their graves than you can imagine. So when I look at the 21st century battlefield, I'm not sure all of those women who are by definition Low T individuals are the problem. And I think testing everybody and then offering testosterone supplements doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you want to do something smart medically for the force, go back to requiring flu shots, which were taken away by Secretary Hegseth.

[09:25:02]

At the end of the day, I don't get it on testosterone. I don't think Ike would either.

SMERCONISH: Admiral James Stavridis, thank you, sir. We appreciate your commentary always.

Still to come, your social media reaction and a question, is Sam Bankman-Fried the victim of Senate groupthink? Should he be serving 25 years for fraud while an Indiana man was just sentenced this week to nine years for rape, child molestation and sexual battery? Does the math add up?

And how did a nation with the population the size of South Carolina make such an impressive World Cup run? Norway isn't just good at soccer. The list is long. Maybe there's something to not picking winners and losers. I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question, do Democrats need a Sister Souljah break with Democratic socialists? While you're there sign up for the newsletter. You'll get the work of illustrators like Eric Allie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:26]

SMERCONISH: Washington has no plan for our 39 trillion in debt and no long term solution for however many entered illegally or overstayed their visas. Heat records are being shattered around the globe yet climate change sits on the back burner, pun intended. Nobody seems concerned about the possibility of civil disorder borne of societal disconnect and wealth disparity.

But hey, at least the Senate found time on Wednesday to unanimously pass a resolution at the behest of Senators Ruben Gallego and Cynthia Lummis, opposing any pardon for Sam Bankman-Fried, currently serving 25 years for the fraud that felled his crypto exchange FDX.

Gallego said that it should not be considered controversial that a convicted fraudster should not be allowed to walk away scot-free. Perhaps that was his last legislative achievement, because a day later came the "New York Post" report of Gallego's past sexual relationships with two House staffers and his very flirtatious nature after a couple of drinks.

I doubt that any senator who signed off on the resolution has read in on the file. I have. In February, CNN asked me to interview SBF's parents. Hours spent in their living room. My first brush with the case was Michael Lewis' 2023 book "Going Infinite," which raised doubts about the case against Bankman-Fried. You know, Lewis, he wrote "Liar's Poker and Moneyball," among others. He's no intellectual slouch.

In his paperback, he added an afterword just so that he could amplify his view of SBF. As he put it, the truth is closer to, quote, "young person with an intellectually defensible but socially unacceptable moral code makes a huge mistake in trying to live by it rather than criminal on the loose in the financial system."

I myself questioned whether SBF has the requisite mens rea. And I wonder how many senators know that that FDX customers have been paid back in full with interest? Yet the Senate celebrates Judge Lewis Kaplan's 25 years for a 32-year-old with no criminal history.

And meanwhile, just this month, nine years concurrent for an Indiana man's rape, child molesting and sexual battery of two young girls. Twelve to 15.5 years for a North Carolina woman who shot her boyfriend in the back. Twenty-one years parole possible in 2031 for a fatal West Virginia gas station shooting. Unanimity, it turns out, is easy when the target is already in prison.

Social media reaction to today's program so far. What do we have? From the world of Facebook. WTF is wrong with you, Michael? You have this vendetta against Democrats while this corrupt administration runs roughshod over our democracy.

No, Chris, I'm wondering what comes next and how this crossroads within the Democratic Party is going to get resolved. The enthusiasm shown for Democratic socialists, and yet the judgment, the battlefield judgment of the likes of Bill Daley, who was here this week, who say, hey, we don't think we can sell this nationally. And I keep wondering when, among the emerging field of 2028 likely candidates, somebody is going to draw a line in the sand that it hasn't happened yet the way that Bill Clinton ultimately did in '92.

More social media reaction from today's program. What do we have?

The only way to truly avoid a quagmire stemming from underestimated foe in a modern, asymmetrical conflict is to just say the F out -- we're going to stay the F out of this place.

Ah, I get it. A little too late for that. Look, you know my view. I never -- I never bought the predicate for bombing Iran on February 28th with Israel. But once we're there, I want to see this mission concluded. Defined as take control of that enriched uranium, because that's the one constant of this whole dynamic.

One more social media reaction. What do we have? You can follow me on X. You can find me on Facebook. All the usual places.

Iran leadership seems content to go down in flames but not before inflicting as much political damage to Trump as they can, says Brian Driscoll.

Brian, I think that what they most have in their arsenal is patience. Like we have the hardened battlefield weaponry. They clearly are mindful of our, you know, ticking clock toward the midterm elections. And if they can just wait us out -- you know, they don't need to win. They win by not losing, if that makes any sense.

Make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. I'd be curious to see how this turns out. Do Democrats need a "Sister Souljah" break with Democratic socialists?

Still to come, my take on President Trump's prime time address and how I would have handled it. And seven World Cup goals and a personality that took over the internet.

[09:35:03]

The giant Norwegian who became this World Cup unofficial star. How Erling Haaland and his teammates trained as kids, that played a pivotal role in their success and it's something that may sound counterintuitive in American youth sports.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: The World Cup is down to its final two days. Today, England and France meet in Miami in the bronze final, the match for third place that neither team expected or necessarily wanted to be playing. And then, of course, tomorrow, Argentina faces Spain in the World Cup final, Lionel Messi against Lamine Yamal, the defending world champion against the reigning European champion, should be great.

But one of the most memorable figures to emerge from this World Cup won't be playing this weekend, Erling Haaland. The giant Norwegian striker, scored seven goals and helped take his country to the quarterfinals in its first World Cup appearance in 28 years.

[09:40:01]

But his goals were only part of the story. Off the field, Haaland seemed to be everywhere, trying on cowboy boots in Texas, documenting what he was eating, showing the same straight faced sense of humor that has made him one of the internet's favorite athletes. But Haaland is also the most visible product of a much bigger Norwegian sports story.

Norway has a population of just 5.5 million people, and yet it continues to produce world class athletes across soccer, golf, tennis, triathlon, the winter Olympics. In Haaland's hometown of Bryne, with a population of about 14,000, 15 percent of the kids that grew up playing soccer play professionally. How did this happen?

Joining me now is Ben Cohen. He writes the "Science of Success" column for the "Wall Street Journal," recently coauthored this piece, "The Nation Breaks Every Rule of U.S. Youth Sports and Built a World Cup Monster." Ben, tell us, what is Bryne FK and what's the philosophy?

BEN COHEN, COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Bryne FK is the local youth team of the club where Erling Haaland grew up. And the philosophy there is as many as possible, for as long as possible, and as good as possible. In other words, the least American way possible.

SMERCONISH: In other words, they don't sort by ability until age 13, right? Everybody gets to play, and the mantra is one of inclusion.

COHEN: That's right. Participation at that age matters even more than winning. So, the club is free and then becomes low cost as opposed to in the U.S. where youth sports are prohibitively expensive. The idea is to keep kids playing for as long as possible.

They do not specialize early. They play a whole bunch of sports, and they learn to love playing sports. And that sounds completely anathema and slightly insane in the U.S. And yet in Bryne, of the 40 kids who grew up on Erling Haaland's youth team, 35 played throughout their childhood, six turned pro, five played for the Norwegian national team at different youth levels, and one grew up to be the most intimidating, electrifying, beloved player in the entire world.

SMERCONISH: OK, do you mean that I don't have to get up at 4:30 and drive my kid to ice hockey practice so that they can get into Duke like you did? COHEN: You know, I don't think Duke has a hockey team, and I'm not sure what the Norwegian style is when it comes to waking up way too early in the morning to play youth sports. But the idea is like, you want kids to love playing sports.

And, you know, the amazing thing about this Norwegian model of youth sports is that people seem to really like it and it works which -- you know, in the U.S. people really don't like the U.S. -- the youth sports model. And it's not really clear how well it works anymore.

SMERCONISH: So I'm a product of an age where you really could play a sport in the fall. It wasn't soccer then, right? It was -- it was football. Soccer had not yet gained prominence. And then for guys, basketball. And in the spring baseball. And there was an equivalent for the girls.

But there's been this big trend toward specialization. Like you got to find your hook, maybe not to get into Duke, but to shoot for a school of that stature. And that's why I found what you wrote so compelling, because the Norwegians are totally at odds with the U.S. model. And yet, as this guy points out, it seems to work.

COHEN: They don't believe in early specialization. That's totally right. They encourage kids to sample as many sports as possible and dabble in them even if you're not going to turn pro, even if you're not going to get a college scholarship, even if you're not going to play throughout high school. And Erling Haaland is actually a perfect example of this.

He is the son of an English premier league player, one of the great Norwegian soccer players ever. But his mother is a champion heptathlete. And so Haaland grew up playing soccer, yes, but also doing all sorts of track and field.

His best sport might have been the long jump. He also played handball, he played golf. He did what kids used to do and they still do in Norway.

SMERCONISH: A final thought. When I reflect on playing sports as a kid, for me in the early 70s, the highlight was something in which parents weren't involved at all. The Flyers won back to back Stanley Cups in '73, '74, '75. And we played street hockey. And other neighborhoods in the community in which I was born and raised they formed teams as well. Nobody had uniforms. There weren't referees. There were no parents.

And you wrote about Bryne that, yes, they built this facility, but they leave it open and you can come and go as you please. And I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe parents need to do less and let kids just mingle on their own.

COHEN: One of the remarkable things about Bryne is that when Erling Haaland was five years old, they put up this indoor soccer facility in the middle of town, just by chance. Total coincidence. And every Saturday and Sunday morning, Haaland, and every other boy his age, would go to this indoor turf facility and they would just play soccer by themselves for hours and hours and hours.

[09:45:03]

It was always unlocked. It was always open. It was always accessible and available to everyone who wanted to use it. And Erling Haaland and the other Norwegians in Bryne were among the many people who wanted to use it all the time, and we are now seeing the results of it 20 years later.

SMERCONISH: Ben, it's a great backstory. Thank you for writing it. Thank you for your willingness to come here and discuss it.

More social media now from those who are watching the program. Follow me on X. Please check out my YouTube content. You know where to find me.

Our sports development is a product -- yes, that's what I just said. It's like parents who are either living out what they wish their glory days had been, or I actually fault college admissions for this. I do. Everybody needs a hook. That's the nature of the beast.

You know, it's like you're casting a play as the admissions office and you've got to figure out, well, who's going to be in the band? Who will the actors be? Who's going to sell tickets?

And athletics are a hook for many. Nothing wrong with that. But I think that it has instilled in parents this desire to determine very early on what will their son, what will their daughter best excel at. And that's not the way the Norwegians are doing it.

Like everybody gets to play and they should be playing everything. And parents play less of a role. Pretty cool.

Coming up, while some major broadcast networks declined to air President Trump's prime time address live, I made a different call, and I'm eager to tell you why. I think that you air it first and then challenge it.

Plus, you still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Here's what I'm asking. Do Democrats need a "Sister Souljah" break with Democratic socialists? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free and it's worthy, and you get editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers. Love that one.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:51:00]

SMERCONISH: Thursday night, President Trump asked for the nation's attention for a prime time address, a speech that many outlets declined to carry live. Here's what I would have done. If instead of speaking Thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the president had spoken at 9:00 a.m. a time when my radio program airs nationwide, the decision would have been mine as to whether to interrupt my normal programing and carry the speech live on SiriusXM's POTUS channel. This actually happens with some regularity. In fact, it's often the bane of my existence because the president, all presidents, are rarely on time. But my standard practice is to take the remarks live. And I think it's an easy call.

Had I taken this speech primarily on alleged election interference, I would not have been endorsing the content. And it would have been incumbent on me to offer fair comment and criticism when it ended. But if I hadn't taken the feed and merely monitored what he said, only to then offer a critique, I don't think that would be fair to the office of the presidency. I think consistency matters.

If it's newsworthy enough to rebut, it's newsworthy enough to air it first. Rebuttal alone treats the audience as lacking any filter. And I trust my audience to know better.

After a decade of hearing from this president, I have more faith in the American people to make up their own minds. Now, some are going to say, well, that's the problem, that if only the country had been shielded from his mistruths, he'd never have been elected.

But that theory has been tested for a decade. In the most fact checked media environment in history. And the voters, they've heard it all the words and the rebuttals and the fact checking. And they elected him twice.

Denying him 22 minutes in year 10, it's not prevention. It's condescension. Of course, unlike the television outlets, I've got an added advantage. When it's over and after I've had my say, I then get to open 12 telephone lines and let anybody who can get through say whatever they want without any fear of derision by me. And that's the best of all worlds.

Time now to see how you responded thus far on the poll question of the day at Smerconish.com. Do Democrats need a "Sister Souljah" break with Democratic socialists?

Here's where it stands, 21,786 have voted. And it's running 62 percent yes to 38 percent no. More social media reaction now to today's program so far. Follow me in all the usual platforms.

Yes, media needs to report more on the DSA platform. It's much worse than Project 2025.

Yes, some, you know, elements of it just published, as a matter of fact, at the end of this week that I know we tend to isolate on the defunding of the police aspect or the nationalization of corporations, but they're there.

I mean, one of the things that I raised with both Tad Devine last week and Bill Daley today is whether this is a semantic issue. In other words, if you recast this as FDR's new deal and you talked about Social Security on a broader scale et cetera, et cetera, could you then sell it? That's the challenge, I think, faced by Democratic socialists. More social media reaction to today's program.

Why does pandering to their extremists work for Republicans but not Democrats?

Well, it doesn't. It doesn't. I mean, I went through the whole -- you know, we toyed in putting together today's program. We toyed with whether I should take such a detailed walk down memory lane as to the 2010 and 2012 cycles for the Tea Party candidates.

I wanted to do it because, you know, we haven't heard some of those. Todd Akin, Richard Murdaugh. We haven't heard Sharron Angle. We haven't heard those names for a long time. But they make a point. They make a point that if you nominate individuals who are out of the mainstream, you can't win a general election.

But the footnote, as I indicated, is what happened in 2016 with President Trump because he was able to harness the energy, I think, that came out of the Tea Party movement and turned it into a nationwide electoral victory for himself. So Democratic socialism, is it the example of the Senate candidates that I named, or is it the example of Donald Trump in 2016?

[09:55:08]

More social media reaction from today's program. Maybe SBF, pardon me, should get one year for every life that he ruined. Not comparable to your other examples where it affects only one life. That being said, the other examples were not long enough.

Well, what of the fact that every one of the, quote, unquote, "victims" of FTX has been paid back with interest? I wonder if the members of the Senate who were so eager to cast a ballot for this unanimous resolution were aware of that fact.

Look, I read in on the file. I suggest everybody do their own reading. Michael Lewis' book was the one that that turned my head. And then doing the interview that was recorded for CNN's use informed me further. So, that's where I'm coming from.

OK, gang, thank you for watching today's program. Vote on the poll question if you've not already done so, and know that if you've missed any of today's show, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)