SIXTHIRTY DOLLARS A GALLON: THE DUMBING OF VOTERS

Monster News · World News

Sixthirty Dollars a Gallon: The Dumbing of Voters

Monster News · 3 November 2026

There was a time when being invited onto a major television network to offer political commentary was supposed to mean something. It suggested that you possessed knowledge, command of the issues, an ability to communicate clearly, and perhaps, just perhaps, a basic grasp of the subject you were discussing.

Apparently, those standards have become optional.

Enter Ana Navarro, a familiar face on CNN and a co-host of ABC’s The View. The night before the midterms, mid-sentence on the cost of living, Navarro delivered a statement that deserves to be remembered — not for its political insight, but for its extraordinary demonstration of how far public discourse has fallen.

Her words?

“Gas is $5 a gallon, diesel is $6 a gallon, ground beef is six thirty dollars a gallon.”

She was talking about ground beef.

Not gasoline. Not milk. Not some obscure commodity traded on an international exchange. Ground beef.

Ground beef is sold by weight. Its retail price is ordinarily measured in dollars per pound. A gallon is a measurement of volume. Yet there it was, delivered with the confidence of someone expecting the audience to absorb the outrage rather than examine the sentence.

And it did not stay in the studio. By the next morning the clip was a meme, and the segment was still sitting on the network’s own feed.

Now, mistakes happen. Nobody is suggesting that a television commentator must be incapable of stumbling over a word or misspeaking. But there is a difference between an occasional verbal slip and the increasingly familiar spectacle of people being paid enormous amounts of money to offer expert opinions while demonstrating remarkably little command of the subjects they discuss.

That is where this becomes bigger than Ana Navarro.

THE BUSINESS OF BEING AN EXPERT

Modern political television has developed a strange relationship with competence. The loudest voices often receive the largest platforms. The most combative personalities are celebrated as courageous. And the ability to deliver a politically satisfying sound bite can apparently matter more than whether the statement actually makes sense.

Viewers are encouraged to applaud. They are encouraged to share clips, defend their favorite personalities, and treat every disagreement as a battle between good and evil.

But when did being loud become the same thing as being informed?

When did saying something with conviction become proof that it is true?

And when did political virtue signaling become an acceptable replacement for basic intellectual responsibility?

These personalities are not simply having conversations around a kitchen table. They are appearing on nationally recognized media platforms, collecting paychecks for their opinions, and influencing how millions of Americans understand the world around them.

People are listening. People are forming opinions. People are voting.

That comes with a responsibility.

THE AUDIENCE DESERVES BETTER

The problem is not that Ana Navarro is a Democrat. It is not that she supports particular candidates or holds political positions that some viewers dislike. She is entitled to her opinions, just as every other commentator is entitled to theirs.

The problem is that political commentary should require some minimum standard of accuracy, preparation, and intellectual honesty — regardless of which political team the commentator happens to represent.

And that standard should apply across the board.

If a Republican commentator makes an elementary factual mistake, call it out. If a Democratic commentator does the same, call it out. If a television personality spreads an unsupported claim, demand evidence. If someone offers an opinion, understand that an opinion is not automatically an informed analysis simply because it comes from a familiar face on a major network.

We should not have to choose between political entertainers. We should be demanding better from the people who have been handed the microphone.

There is also something worth remembering about the broader commentary surrounding this clip: criticizing a person’s professional performance does not justify attacking their nationality, accent, or right to participate in American democracy. The standard of accountability must apply to the commentator making the criticism, too.

That is what independent thinking looks like. It does not come with a party membership card.

SIX THIRTY DOLLARS A GALLON

Perhaps the most troubling part of this entire spectacle is that it is no longer particularly surprising.

We have become accustomed to political personalities making outrageous statements, audiences cheering them on, and media outlets moving on to the next manufactured controversy before anyone has time to ask whether what was just said was even accurate.

The public deserves more than that.

A news network should not confuse personality with expertise. An audience should not confuse confidence with intelligence. And political loyalty should never require people to abandon their ability to recognize nonsense when they hear it.

So the next time someone takes a television platform to explain why you should be angry, why you should vote a certain way, or why their political opponents are destroying the country, perhaps ask a very simple question:

Do they actually know what they’re talking about?

Because if we’re going to let people shape the national conversation, the very least we can expect is that they know the difference between a pound and a gallon. And apparently, that is no longer asking too much.

Source

• Mediaite, “Ana Navarro Drops Brutal Gaffe In Last-Minute Attack on Trump Rising Beef Prices to ‘$6.30 a Gallon'”, November 3, 2026.

Monster News — The Daily Truth.