We continue our conversation with MAGA faithful Chuck Cordit about why he thinks Donald Trump's first 100 days in office have been successful.

Donald Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years, with public pushback on many of his policies and extensive economic discontent, including broad fears of a recession.

The concept of the "First 100 Days" refers to the early period of a U.S. president’s new term, typically seen as a symbolic window to set the tone, push key policies and demonstrate leadership. It represents a kind of political version of a first impression.

In the United States, no one talked that much about the importance of a president’s first 100 days—until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933. He took swift action to calm the nation’s crippling financial panic (cue the Emergency Banking Act and the “fireside chats” that became Roosevelt’s signature) and began rolling out the programs that made up his New Deal, including 15 major pieces of legislation in the first 100 days. FDR’s extraordinary productivity translated into enormous popularity, and he set a first 100-day standard against which all future U.S. presidents would (perhaps unfairly) be measured.

We talk with Chuck Cordak, an ardent MAGA supporter, about why he thinks Trump's first 100 days have been successul, and, of course, we offer our view. Spoiler alert: Chuck is positively impressed; we're not.

What seems to matter to MAGA followers, like Chuck, is the volume of activity that surrounds the Trump administration. The question is, what does all that activity do for the good of the country?

Chuck is a father of six, five who serve in the military. He has been deeply involved with Ohio, Illinois GOP politics for over 40 years. A former ROTC Midshipman at Ohio State University, Chuck is a native Ohioan and says he was raised as a Truman Kenndy Democrat with conservative Catholic education and traditional values. He has worked all over the Midwest, as well as the Northeast. Chuck resides in Columbus and is currently working on releasing a thought buster book. Chuck is also a segment contributor for Sirius XM and TNT Radio and writes for AFNN.us.

So what does it take for a MAGA faithful to offer any criticism of Trump? Listen and find out.

In 1974, Ohio’s prison population was 8,400 Ohioan. By 2011, the number grew to 51,000. Are we any safer as a result? Do all these inmates need to remain behind bars?

Are we just locking up people without adequate attention being paid to things like education, drug treatment, mental health treatment and cognitive therapy? Our guest, Gary Mohr, former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, wanted to know, and so he called on the late Edward Latessa, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Criminal Justice to find out.

Latessa spent three years visiting every prison in Ohio, collecting data and examining every program prisons offered to inmates. He concluded that an inmate’s pursuit of a GED, drug treatment and other self-help programs resulted in a statistically significant difference in terms of violence and recidivism.

After Latessa completed his research, the Ohio legislature delved into revising the criminal code and created a panel of 23 individuals, consisting of legislators, defense attorneys, prosecutors and corrections staff. After a year and a half, several recommendations were made, all of which were endorsed by a legislative committee, and then—nothing. No legislation was introduced.

If Ohio’s prison population has increased from 8,400 to 51,000, while the general population has remained fairly stable, that means, Mohr explains, there’s either a staggering increase in crime, or we're not doing what we need to do to reduce criminality and the amount of time people spend in prison, or some combination.

Crime didn’t increase significantly during Mohr’s tenure, but the criminal code increased, and sentencing changed. Now we have more mandatory sentencing, which is a disincentive for inmates to engage in those programs that Latessa proved were beneficial in reducing the prison population.

Add to this that politically it’s popular to be tough on crime. Sentencing offenders to long jail time is more popular than pushing for rehabilitation. Listen to the conversation.