Vanan Murugesan

And I just think the unintended consequences of essentially being a party – and I get at this a little bit.

I don't think we're ready –

to move on from this moment we're living in.

I went deeper on my Monday monologue about talking about sort of comparing the era between Jackson and Lincoln to the era we're living in now and how long it took us.

We had seven presidents that basically refused to deal with the actual divide that was the issue that was actually dividing us, which was slavery.

In this era of polarization, we don't seem to be dealing with the issue that we're actually all arguing about, which is who's an American and who should be an American and what is America.

And until we confront that issue head on.

All these little things we do to game the situation on the left or right to try to win power just delays, just puts that confrontation and that issue off yet another election cycle or two.

So I guess my longer term answer to your point here is, Dean, this certainly allows you to deal with the moment on firmer ground, but it ain't a solution.

I'm going to take one more question and then I, unfortunately, I'm going to have to put this one.

We don't want to go too long on these things.

Last question comes from Scott Turner in Oregon.

Hey, Chuck, I listen to your podcast at the gym, sweating around oldies rather than to them.

Helps take my mind off of how much tougher it is to age at my age.

My question has to do with how media outlets handle political lies.

Often reporters say there's no evidence for those claims, which makes it sound like the claims might still be true instead of just false.

Why don't journalists more directly call lies what they are?

And how do reporters keep a straight face when they hear obviously ridiculous answers?

Also, happy baseball.

Your current Nats travails remind me of being an early 1980s Oakland A's fan in nearly empty stadiums.