Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

Were you shocked to learn last week that Lindsey Graham was gay? — Ben G.

I’m aware of the Young Turks’ expose (or whatever it was) on the topic, Ben, but I don’t know if the claim has been confirmed. Regardless, like a lot of people, I had long just kind of assumed Graham was gay, and I never cared. What would bother me is a U.S. Senator (whether that person be gay or straight) soliciting prostitutes, which I think was part of the claim. I would be concerned about that kind of thing leading to extortion, or the senator otherwise being compromised, including potentially by a foreign entity. But again, I don’t know for certain if either claim is true. And since Graham is no longer with us, he can’t respond.

Is there such a thing as ‘Zelenskyy Derangement Syndrome?’ Pertaining to MAGA and our president? — Sharon H.

Oh it’s definitely real. And our president, much of the Trump family, the vice president, Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and key members of the administration suffer from it. They won’t meaningfully criticize Putin (a war criminal and enemy of the United States), but they’re always up for defaming (and in some cases sabotaging) Zelensky. Some MAGA voters certainly share their animus, but the polls show that a majority of them are actually supportive of Ukraine (a reversal from the Biden years), and correctly understand that Putin’s the bad guy.

Sir John— in the spirit of the spooky season & since you’re a Colorado resident, I ask— have you ever been to the Hotel Boulderado and did you experience any paranormal activity in Rooms 302 & 304? Did you see the spectral Woman in White pacing the halls? For that matter, I hear that the spirit of Honest Abe haunts the White House. When Trump eventually departs for the afterlife, do you think his ghost will haunt the ballroom? Would the ghost of Honest Abe tolerate sharing space with the ghost of the Bestest President that this great nation has ever had? Will there be mysterious sounds of windows shattering and spectral voices heard around January 6th, accompanied by a strange orange glow? Only the Renaissance Man of the Rockies can answer these questions, perhaps with the help of Sir Bernie (I KNOW you’re reading this, Sir Bernie — Trick or Treat!) “Art Bell” regards from The Emperor

Happy Halloween, Emperor.

I’ve never been to the Hotel Boulderado, but my wife and I have spent a lot of time at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO, which was Stephen King’s inspiration for The Shining. It’s a very cool, historic place that has really embraced its largely pop-culture-driven “haunted” status.

I wrote about my love affair with the Stanley a while back, but we’ve only actually stayed there once, earlier this year (we’ve otherwise gone there for meals and shows). The closest thing to a paranormal experience, during our stay, was discovering that the Wi-Fi only worked on one side of our room. Seriously, we had a king-sized bed, and on my wife’s side of it, both her laptop and mine connected fine. On my side (just two feet away), nothing! Maybe an AI ghost was to blame.

Anyway, I won’t speculate on paranormal activity at the White House, but I will say that those walls have seen an awful lot.

I saw you repost Jon Puri’s popular piece for National Review on social media. How many people who read it, do you think, actually understood what he did? — Alex D.

Hi Ben. I thought the piece was smart and creative. And like you, I wonder how many people who read it actually picked up on his broader point (which I’ve made numerous times on this website). I would strongly encourage my readers to check out Puri’s “list” piece, and make sure to click on the hyperlink for each bulleted item. It’s a revealing exercise.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“The longer the span, the greater the risk.”

On July 17, 1981, in Kansas City, Missouri, two overhead walkways inside the Hyatt Regency Hotel, filled with partygoers at the time, suddenly collapsed. 114 people were killed. 216 were injured.

I covered the terrible tragedy and its aftermath for the CBS Evening News a few days later.

Read more

Several years ago, Bernie Goldberg (the purveyor of this website) used to use a line in his writing and Fox News appearances that never quite landed with me. When describing the elites he used to work with in the mainstream media, he’d sometimes say:

These are the kinds of liberals who think ordinary people who fly the American flag are a little scary, and people who like to bowl a little dopey, and people who eat at Red Lobster more than a little unsophisticated.

I certainly understood the point he was making, and felt his remarks about the ‘American flag’ and ‘bowling’ illustrated it well. But not Red Lobster. To me, Red Lobster was elite dining. It was a place rich and fancy folks went to on a Friday night, and discussed the stock market — or maybe the purchase of a new car — while they cracked open shells and cut into thick steaks.

Part of that perception came from my upbringing. I grew up in a lower-middle class household, where my father worked construction at a brewery, and my mother was a substitute teacher. We very rarely dined out. When we did, and it was someplace fancier than McDonald’s (even Arby’s or Wendy’s), we’d put on our nice clothes.

But even as a college student, and later as a young professional, I considered Red Lobster fine-dining. Here in Greeley, Colorado, it was arguably the fanciest restaurant we had for over a decade — a place where limos dropped off decked-out students on prom night. Years later, after I started a family, there were a couple occasions when we ate at Red Lobster. But with the bill each time came sticker shock, and the thought of never coming back.

One of those times, my son, who was quite young, spit a Cheddar Bay Biscuit (aka a taste of Heaven) out of his mouth, because he’d shoved the whole thing in there at once. I recall comically thinking, “I wonder how much that just cost us.”

Anyway, you get the picture. Everything is relative, of course, but if I had been advising Bernie back then, I would have suggested him using Long John Silver’s rather than Red Lobster.

But that’s saltwater under the bridge, and I hadn’t thought about any of this for a number of years — not until just the other day, when former president Barack Obama made a joke at the expense of our current president, Donald Trump. The quip referenced another restaurant chain: The Cheesecake Factory.

During a campaign speech for Democratic candidates in Ohio, Obama, talking about Trump’s “renovations” at the White House, said:

What’s up with the gold? Everything, more gold. He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory. Just gold everywhere.

Some on the political right exploded over the joke, including prominent pundits who are still carrying on about it days later. The nature of the offense they’ve taken, however, doesn’t make much sense to me.

None of them seem to care that Trump was compared to Saddam Hussein, a murderous, torturous, dictator. Also, no one’s defending Trump’s taste in decor, which the president is clearly very proud of, and has spent a lot of time expressing in his second term.

They’re instead defending the honor of… The Cheesecake Factory.

“Obama mocking Cheesecake Factory tells you everything about how out of touch political elites are,” said pundit, Clay Travis. “Growing up, eating there was a special occasion for my family, just as it is for millions of Americans today. Obama is telling on himself here.”

“Don't go after The Cheesecake Factory!” Fox News host, Greg Gutfeld, demanded of his liberal co-host, Jessica Tarlov. “A lot of us don't have a personal chef… The Cheesecake Factory is a tribute to America. It's literally a melting pot, Jessica, that's why you hate it.”

(Notably, Tarlov wasn’t “going after” the Cheesecake Factory, nor did she suggest she hated it. She, in fact, said she loved the restaurant. But Gutfeld didn’t want to stray from his pre-written table-notes, so that’s what viewers of The Five got from him).

CNN’s Scott Jennings complained that Obama “hasn’t eaten dinner that costs less than $250 in years. Has never been in a Cheesecake Factory. Undefeated at condescending to regular folks.”

“Clinging to my guns and religion at the Greensboro Cheesecake Factory tonight,” Mark Walker, a former Republican congressman, proudly posted online (with a picture of himself standing in front of the restaurant).

Steve Krakauer, executive producer of The Megyn Kelly Show, called Obama’s joke “elitist garbage.” He insisted that the Cheesecake Factory has “none of the gaudy Trump aesthetic,” and that the joke just felt good to Obama to say “because it represents flyover MAGA ‘night out.’”

Now, I must say that I’ve only eaten at the Cheesecake Factory once, and it was decades ago. So, my personal memories of its decor are pretty faint. But as others, including conservative columnist David French, recently pointed out (with photographic proof), the decor is indeed very gold and gaudy.

“Every loyal Cheesecake Factory customer (I’m one of them) thinks the decor is ludicrously over the top,” wrote French. “It’s part of the charm of the place.”

But it’s not the restaurant’s decor that makes the backlash to Obama’s joke so weird and disingenuous to me. It’s the suggestion that the Cheesecake Factory, of all places, is some kind of working class hangout that the rich snobs hold in contempt.

I mean, does anyone really believe that?

As someone who has long viewed Red Lobster as an upscale establishment, I think it clearly pales in comparison to the prestige and poshness of the Cheesecake Factory. The Cheesecake Factory is at a whole different level — fancier, flashier, and more expensive.

$20 for a very basic burger? $50 for a ribeye steak? Hey, to each their own, but I’m a simple guy who’d rather eat somewhere less swanky. The Cheesecake Factory will continue to do just fine without my business, of course. The restaurant has lots of fans, including very wealthy ones, like U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Kim Kardashian, and a number of Hollywood celebrities.

In other words, this is not the class-warfare battle some people want it to be. It’s just another excuse to be mad at the other side, and we already have plenty of those.

So, let me throw out a little proposal…

How about, unlike what we’ve done with sports, the church, and pretty much everything else, we avoid dragging restaurants through our political battleground? It was dumb when the Left went after Chick-fil-A over a gay-marriage stance. It was dumb when the Right went after Cracker Barrel over a logo change. And it’s dumb now with the Cheesecake Factory stuff.

How about, when it comes to restaurants and politics, we just shut up and eat?

Share

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at how the results of the midterms will factor into the future of the Democratic party.

Share

Read more

What is this thing Donald Trump has for Vladimir Putin, this respect for a brutal dictator, this admiration for a war criminal? Why would an American president want to get so chummy with a man like Putin?

On his way to a recent campaign rally, the president said, “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” before adding, “They haven’t been doing much.”

Words matter and in this case the president’s words are detached from reality. Russia has taken deliberate aim at civilians in Ukraine. Putin has targeted apartment buildings in Kyiv, the capital city. He’s aimed his missiles at hospitals and schools. And with winter approaching, he’s targeting what’s left of Ukraine’s electricity grid.

And yet the president tells us that “Russia has been fine on Ukraine”? And “They haven’t been doing much”?

Maybe Mr. Trump thinks he can sweet-talk Putin to encourage him to make a deal to end the war. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking. Or …maybe Trump’s affection for Putin is affecting his judgment.

For Volodymyr Zelensky, who’s fighting for his country’s very survival, President Trump shows no respect, certainly no admiration. Instead he shows contempt.

“We’ve given a lot to Ukraine.” Trump says. “They’ve given nothing to us.”

So the president has rolled out another red carpet for Putin — this time not literally as he did last summer in Alaska. This time the red carpet comes in the form of help from the president that would fuel Putin’s war machine and inflict more pain on Ukrainian civilians.

As David Sanger of the New York Times reports, “[President Trump] shunted aside a bipartisan law, signed just weeks ago, imposing new tariffs on Russia. He cut a deal to purchase diesel from Moscow. His negotiators agreed on the vague outlines of a deal for much of Lukoil, a battered Russian energy firm. And he called for the replacement of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, whose success in taking the fight inside Russia deeply frustrates him.”

And last week we learned that Russia agreed to talks with Ukraine and the United States next month. But we shouldn’t expect much. The talks — if they even actually happen — would involve low level representatives, and so there’s virtually no chance they would lead to an end to the war.

Putin wants the kind of deal that Russia can live with and Ukraine can’t, the kind of deal he can persuade his “friend” President Trump to go along with and shove down Zelensky’s throat.

And at some point, it could happen — because the president blames Zelensky for keeping the war going, the war Russia started without provocation. He sees Ukraine, not Russia, as the obstacle to peace.

And while he was in Moscow last week, Steve Witkoff, the president’s chief negotiator, offered up a rhetorical kiss on the cheek to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president had just agreed to let a retired American teacher go free after being held for four years in a Russian prison.

“You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian,” Witkoff told Putin. “You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute you.”

Let’s see if we have this right: Putin arrests an American on phony charges, convicts him in a Russian kangaroo court, keeps him locked up for four years, and when he releases him, he’s called a “humanitarian.” Maybe Putin also deserves a Nobel Prize for his generosity.

And while everyone was smiling and playing nice inside the Kremlin, while Mr. Trump’s man in Moscow was hailing Putin as a humanitarian, Russia was raining missiles on men, women and children inside Ukraine.

And lost in all of this is another reality. It’s not only Ukraine that’s getting hammered. Our president’s “bromance” with Putin is also inflicting damage to America, to American values.

“President Trump and MAGA succeeded in part because they tapped into the sense of loss many Americans were feeling, the fear that the civilization the U.S. had helped create was in peril,” Gerry Baker writes in the Wall Street Journal. “They were elected to restore faith in America after years in which its leaders and culture had trashed American values.”

“America is still the greatest country on earth,” Baker goes on. “But its greatness will atrophy unless it restores its historic sense of purpose and the ideals of its founding principles and finds again leaders willing to place those ideals above the sordid, shameful, soul-defiling lust for power and money.”

Donald Trump likes the company of strong, authoritarian men. That’s how he sees Putin. As far as Trump is concerned, Zelensky is a little obstinate man standing in the way of a deal that would not only end the killing, but also might finally get Mr. Trump the Nobel Peace Prize he believes he deserves.

So let me end where I began: What’s this thing President Trump has for Putin, a man who is following in the footsteps of Josef Stalin? Whatever this thing is, it’s not good for Ukraine — and it’s certainly not good for the United States of America.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

So speaking of poorly considered ideas obviously meant to ignite the base, do you think that Trump will actually denaturalize and deport Ilhan Omar “back where she came from”? As I certainly recall him calling for, way back during the First Trump Administration. It could very well just be a stunt that gets as far as the “let’s Livestream a military firing squad” idea eventually got.

Certainly, MAGA bots tend to screech “De-naturalize and Deport” in response to crimes committed even by brown people who acquired their citizenship by birth, or whose families have lived in the US for generations. So maybe this is just something meant to pander to that crowd. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if there actually is something technically incorrect / illegal about her naturalization application. So, do you think this investigation will actually result in Omar being stripped of her citizenship and deported? Or will it quietly go away after the midterms? —Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. Based on some of the analysis I’ve heard, I heavily suspect the information on Omar’s immigration paperwork decades ago (when she was a minor) was indeed misstated. Also, from what I understand, the statute of limitations for any potential criminal charges related to that offense (if it was indeed an offense) have expired. Even beyond that, there are significant legal hurdles for the government to have to clear in order to make anything stick. Thus, I think the chances of her being denaturalized and deported are extremely low, and I don’t think that was ever really the goal in the first place.

I think this is a political stunt — catnip for Trump’s base. It will put Omar though some legal headaches, and cost her some time and money, but I think the case will eventually get tossed out by a judge (sometime after the midterms). In other words, I don’t think she’s going anywhere.

John - Now that the administration has moved forward- as promised- to investigate U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, will it be a matter of time before they attempt to deport her after their findings of fraud? I believe they absolutely will. — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I’ll direct you to my answer above.

Sir John —Why didn’t the Republicans in Texas come out en masse during the primaries to put Cornyn in the race against Talarico? It should’ve been a slam dunk. — “They Should’ve Sent Paxton Packin’!” Regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. If President Trump would have endorsed Cornyn, Cornyn would have won the GOP primary, and very likely gone on to win the general election. Senate Republican leadership and the NRSC very much understood how problematic of a nominee Paxton would be, and they plead with Trump to endorse Cornyn.

But unlike with other GOP primary contests, Trump stayed out of the race (until right at the end), because he knew Paxton was aggressively loyal to him. This let Paxton define himself as the most passionately pro-Trump candidate in the race (which is a priority to many Republican voters). And for what it’s worth, he was. As much as Cornyn had humiliated himself for Trump over the years, Paxton literally tried to help our president overturn the 2020 election. This proved to Trump that Paxton was willing to damage or circumvent our constitutional order on his behalf (which Trump likes). When the polls showed Paxton pulling ahead a week out from the primary, Trump officially endorsed Paxton, which sealed Cornyn’s fate.

As I’ve argued a number of times, I don’t think Trump really cares about maintaining Republican majorities in Congress. He just wants a lockstep party that will do whatever he wants.

How much do you think Marc Thiessen hates you by now? 😂 — Ben G.

Oh, I’m thinking a whole lot, Ben. Lol. For those who don’t know what Ben’s talking about, I give the former Bush official and longtime Fox News contributor, Marc Thiessen, a deservedly hard time on X… mostly over the Trump administration’s handling of Ukraine.

Thiessen, who I believe is sincerely pro-Ukraine (like I am), has some kind of direct or indirect access to President Trump. And he clearly calculated, probably two years ago, that if he cheerleads Trump incessantly (online, in print, and on television), and shamelessly whitewashes the president’s foreign policy decisions on Ukraine as being brilliant, super-awesome for Ukraine, and tough on Russia, Thiessen will not only maintain that access, but Trump will — at some point — actually start listening to him, and do the things Thiessen claims he’s already been doing to better help Ukraine against Russia.

It obviously hasn’t worked. Trump has mostly treated Ukraine like garbage since returning to office, all while Thiessen has not only written one WaPo fan-fiction piece after another about how great of an ally Trump’s been, but has also refused to publicly criticize Trump in any way… even at times when Trump betrays Ukraine in especially hideous ways (like he’s doing now). Thiessen just goes completely silent when that happens.

Thus, I’ve gotten into the habit of quote-tweeting the latest Trump atrocities against Ukraine with “Marc Thiessen could not be reached for comment,” and other posters have been putting it on Thiessen’s radar. Marc’s lashed out at me a few times, but what’s particularly interesting is how many former and event current colleagues of his have reached out to tell me I’m very much on-target. They’re embarrassed by how he’s conducted himself, and believe his efforts have been misguided and counterproductive.

Did you happen to see the Chris Como and Bill O’Reilly argument over Trump’s relationship with Putin? If so, what did you think? — Alex D.

I hadn’t seen it, Alex, but was intrigued enough by your question to seek out the segment and watch it. If I watched the correct one (I think I did), I’d call it more of a discussion than an argument. But on the points of the contention, I think Cuomo was right. Putin only understands force. Unlike Trump, Putin can’t be won over by flattery. The same goes for bribery, at least not when it comes to Ukraine.

I flatly reject O’Reilly’s claim that “Trump has done everything that he can” for Ukraine. That’s not even close to being true. Trump has not only pulled back on our country’s support of Ukraine since returning to office, but has repeatedly thrown Ukraine under the bus, often in very disgusting (and even deadly) ways, to try and force Ukraine to basically surrender to Putin. He’s also needlessly offered all kinds of concessions to Russia.

The best thing we could do, not just for Ukraine, but for the United States and the rest of the free world, would be to ratchet up our support for Ukraine, in the form of intelligence, technology, weapons, sanctions etc. — to make it as painful as possible for Russia to continue this invasion. We should have been doing that all along, instead of defaming Zelensky, trashing Ukraine, and snuggling up to Putin (which no other U.S. president would have done).

There’s no need for us to step in militarily. Ukraine has been doing all the fighting on behalf of the free world, and they can end this war largely on their terms if they reliably have the tools to make it happen. That doesn’t necessarily mean driving Russia all the way out beyond Ukraine’s pre-war borders. But it does mean Ukraine at least maintaining the land that Russia hasn’t been able to conquer militarily.

But unfortunately for everyone except Putin, that’s not what Trump is doing.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“In this community, there is a widespread feeling that there are two systems of justice.”

In December of 1979, Miami police officers beat an African American man named Arthur McDuffie into a fatal coma following a high-speed motorcycle chase. Officers tried to cover up the cause of McDuffie’s injuries, falsely attributing them to a vehicular accident. Despite eye-witness accounts of the assault, an all-white Tampa jury, in May of 1980, acquitted the officers of criminal charges including manslaughter.

The verdict led to three days of rioting in Liberty City, Overtown, and nearby areas. The violence included arson, looting, and attacks on white motorists. Eighteen people were killed, hundreds were injured, and close to $100 million in damage was done. The episode highlighted deep racial tensions over policing in Miami.

A year after the riots, I did a report on the still-broken community for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about the midterm elections and Trump’s controversial moves on Russia/Ukraine.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

During the last administration, I was critical of what I believed to be President Biden’s inadequate support of Ukraine. Yes, the United States remained a pretty reliable ally throughout his tenure, and Biden spoke out strongly against Putin’s illegal invasion, but our president was often a day late and a dollar short when it came to providing Ukraine with the necessary resources to defend itself. I also worried, in the run-up to the 2024 election, that the same would be true if Kamala Harris became president.

But that worry paled in comparison to what I feared might happen to Ukraine if Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office.

About a month before the election, I wrote:

A Trump/Vance administration should very much concern those who believe it’s vitally important that Putin’s war-crime-ridden invasion of Ukraine ultimately ends in defeat. Trump’s well-documented man-crush on the Russian president, his history of playing games with Ukraine defense-funding (and accusing them of U.S. election interference), and his invitation to Putin to attack our Nato allies are far from the only suggestions that Trump will abandon our ally.

Trump couldn’t even bring himself to say at last month’s presidential debate that it would be good if Ukraine won. Last week, he parroted Russian talking points, declaring that “Ukraine is gone. It’s not Ukraine anymore,” and that “any deal, even the worst deal, would be better than what we have right now.”

I truly hoped that my concerns back then were overstated, and would ultimately prove unwarranted. But as it turns out, I was probably being too generous to Trump.

Our president’s lies about Ukraine and their president, Volodymyr Zelensky, haven’t stopped. They’ve only intensified, as has Trump’s regurgitation of Russian propaganda. Direct U.S. aid to Ukraine has been significantly reduced, and the deadly “games” the administration has played with our remaining aid have not only reached new levels of perversity, but are now being coupled with substantive support for Ukraine’s war-criminal invader, Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The latest series of betrayals began on October 9, when President Trump announced that the U.S. had agreed to purchase potentially millions of tons of diesel fuel from Russia, in a purported effort to bring down high gas prices in the United States (which Trump has been falsely blaming on Ukraine). Such a deal would mean billions of U.S. dollars sent to Russia — dollars that would assuredly be used to fund the Russian war machine against Ukraine (while making virtually no difference to what U.S. consumers would pay at the pump).

Two days later, amidst successful Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s oil industry, Trump announced that he had successfully negotiated an “energy cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine. The announcement came as a huge surprise to pretty much everyone… including Russia and Ukraine, who hadn’t a clue what Trump was talking about. Still, Zelensky complied with the terms by pausing Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil targets. Russia, however, continued targeting Ukrainian energy sites, nullifying the “agreement” that Trump later acknowledged he had basically made up (presumably because he worried Ukraine’s strikes on Russia would screw up his diesel deal).

Early last week, about 24 hours after Trump’s “cease-fire” announcement, Ukraine officials reported that they were no longer receiving their usual U.S. intelligence warnings of incoming Russian ballistic missiles, including those targeting Kyiv. Soon after, Ukraine reported connection slowdowns of the U.S.-provided Starshield internet-satellite system, which the country uses to guide their military drones.

While Ukraine was left to deal with the increasingly chaotic situation, Trump announced on Friday night that he had signed an executive order exempting Russia from the crippling sanctions recently passed by Congress in the Lindsey Graham Act.

The hugely generous favor to Putin was met with bipartisan criticism, including from Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence.

“President Trump’s decision to waive sanctions against Russia as Putin continues his brutal war of aggression against Ukraine dishonors the legacy of the late Senator Lindsey Graham and is decidedly not in the national interests of the United States and should be reversed,” said Pence. “Putin is a war criminal and only understands strength. Waiving Graham Act sanctions on Russia signals weakness at a moment that demands American strength.”

On Sunday, President Zelensky said that U.S. intelligence sharing had resumed, but that their Starshield access had been capped and is still severely limited.

Elon Musk, CEO of Starshield’s creator, SpaceX, is insistent that the U.S. government — not his company — is behind it. Trump has denied the claim, while continuing to blame Ukraine for the war, calling for Ukraine to elect a new president, and arguing that Ukraine, not Russia, has been the obstacle to peace.

Zelensky agrees with Musk, saying on Sunday that Starshield’s manipulation is “a message from the American government.” Zelensky also revealed that the U.S. is holding back on providing Ukraine with already-paid-for Patriot interceptors, which are used to stop incoming Russian ballistic missiles.

Trump, it seems, is firmly holding onto his previously stated belief that “any deal, even the worst deal,” is better than continued fighting between the countries. And the withholding of U.S. intelligence, Starshield access, and other defensive resources all further add to the conclusion that Trump prefers a “deal” that amounts to Ukrainian surrender… even as Russia, the invading country that targets innocent civilians every day (and is aiding the Iranian regime against us), has been dramatically weakened.

As The Dispatch reports:

On the battlefield, this year has been one of Ukraine’s strongest since 2022: Russia’s advance has slowed sharply, in April its forces lost more ground than they took for the first time since August 2024, and Ukraine’s long-range drones hit a Russian oil refinery about once every three days in the first eight months of 2026. And after nearly two years of Russian forces slowly grinding forward in the Donetsk oblast, as of October 14, Ukraine had regained 107 square miles of territory and significantly reduced Russia’s summer push to encircle Ukraine’s remaining cities in the Donbas.

That success has been largely due to Ukraine’s drone superiority and skill—enabled in large part by Starshield, the military-grade version of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet network, which many Ukrainian drone operations depend on.

Vladimir Putin has assuredly concluded that he can’t win his war on Ukraine on the battlefield — not with how strong, innovative, and resilient of a foe Ukraine has proven itself to be. He’s been at it for over four and a half years, and his country continues to incur terrible costs as a result of his unprovoked aggression.

That a president of the United States would step in at this moment, and try to save Putin by knee-capping Ukraine, is beyond disgraceful. It’s a stain on our country, and those inclined to defend or rationalize this betrayal wouldn’t dream of doing so for Biden, Harris, or virtually anyone else.

Share

You have to hand it to Donald Trump. He’s managed to offend Democrats, alienate independents, and now, just for good measure, he’s turning off Republicans, too.

Not exactly a brilliant political strategy with the midterm elections just a few weeks away.

As a headline in the New York Times put it: “Signs are emerging that dispirited Republican voters may stay home in November.”

Apparently, even some Republicans have had enough. They’re tired of the chaos, tired of the constant feuding, tired of the daily drama. In a word — make that two words — they’re tired of Donald Trump.

The Times quotes a former Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives who put it this way: “People are tired. The whole divider-in-chief thing, it’s gotten to the point where it’s just exhausting.”

And it’s a safe bet he’s not alone.

So what’s Trump’s solution? He’s telling Republicans to vote as if he were on the ballot. Careful what you wish for, Mr. President. Some Republicans may take your advice — and stay home.

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, watching your interaction on X / Twitter with the crazies about your post of “Any of them. You could have nominated any of them, Republicans.” made me wonder. How much joy does it bring you to engage with the crazies? Are most of them trolls and bots?

I find it almost exhausting just watching your interaction. I give you credit for it, but I also wonder if you’re starting to lose it. 😉 Maybe we need Kimberly Ross to step in for you for some well needed R&R. — Judd Y.

Lol. For the other readers here, this is the post Judd is referring to:

I posted it after President Trump’s announcement of the “ENERGY CEASEFIRE” agreement he claimed to have made with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, that would have not only violated the U.S. law, but given a crap-load of money to Russia (in exchange for diesel fuel) which would have assuredly gone to further funding Russia’s war-invasion of Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Zelensky knew nothing about the agreement, and Russia never ceased its firing on Ukraine anyway. It’s unclear if this alleged deal (which Trump mistakenly believes will bring down diesel prices in the United States) will go anywhere from here, but Trump has been bashing Ukraine (again) ever since, ridiculously blaming them for the high price of diesel in the United States, and calling for Ukraine to elect a new president. He apparently even withheld real-time intelligence and satellite guidance from them for a day or two, which is disgraceful.

My post was just a quick reminder that there were a number of fit and capable Republicans running for president in 2024 (against a very weak and unpopular Democratic administration), but the party chose the guy who they knew, among other things, had a man-crush on Putin — an enemy of America. As you noticed, the tweet received lots of crazy responses.

To answer your question: No, it doesn’t bring me “joy” to engage with some of the crazies, but I do think there’s some benefit, at times, in mocking these (mostly anonymous) bozos who spend countless hours online trying to bully/harass people into silence. As to whether they’re trolls or bots, it’s a combination of both — I think more trolls than bots (though they’re effectively the same thing these days). And since you brought up my friend Kimberly Ross, I will say that I’m pretty sure she’s meaner to the trolls than I am. Lol. She’s been known to bring a barbwire bat to a rubber-band fight, and you can quote me on that.

John, While sitting here doing a bit of simple math, I realize the debt of many countries, including our own, but at the same time many Muslim countries are very extremely wealthy. Won’t this lead to a scenario of these wealthy countries gaining more world power and influence while Europe and America flounder in debt? Or worse? — Sharon H.

It’s a very good point, Sharon. In addition to what the debt crisis will do to us domestically, it will be very damaging to our role and influence on the world stage. It therefore would not only pose a national security threat, but open up vacuums across the globe for other countries (including bad actors working against American interests) to fill.

Our national debt is a catastrophic threat to our country, and both parties are only making it worse. When things implode, however, we can rest assured that they’ll only blame each other.

Do you think former Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz will receive a presidential pardon, regarding allegations he sex trafficked two young women. — Ben G.

I don’t think he’s been charged with a crime, but is rather facing a civil lawsuit. Thus, a pardon wouldn’t apply. But if Gaetz did want a pardon for something, I’m guessing he could probably get one.

John: Bernie wrote a column this week about NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s obsession with Israel. The Boulder, CO city council (near and dear to your home) is suing several oil companies for their part in climate change, an action that is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, Karen Bass was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades fires broke out, despite dire warnings ahead of time that her city was in grave danger of such a natural disaster. What is with this recent phenomenon of local officials involving themselves with international issues far beyond the scope of their municipalities? Are they so bored with bond elections, budgets and potholes that they feel the need to veer way out of their lanes? — Steve R.

I think there’s definitely something to your last question, Steve, but I believe it’s less about boredom than it is an often misguided desire to make a bigger difference. Many years ago, Tip O’Neill said that “All politics is local." The view carried some wisdom at the time, but the political landscape has changed a lot since then. Most Americans these days view politics through a national lens. There are many reasons why, including the 24/7 news cycle and the internet, which have led to the growth of grievance-festering online communities (rather than unifying local communities), and the turning of our politics into a form of entertainment. Far too many people these days view public service as a platform for becoming a celebrity influencer or activist, rather than as an opportunity (and honor) to serve the constituents that voted them into office. Such people tend to — as you say — veer way out of their lanes.

Sir John — Apparently Mayor Mamdahni was recently heckled by his former far left supporters who accused him of being complicit in the false claims of “genocide” because he apparently was NOT far enough to the left for the progs.. Of course the usual left-wing pundits are calling this a “conspiratorial psy-op” from the conservatives. I personally find it amusing to see Mamdahni on the receiving end of the leftist nonsense that he pushes. What are your thoughts on all of this? —“Mamdahni, Whaddya’ Say? How Many Kids Did ‘Ya Kill Today?” Regards from The Emperor

I paid very little attention to this, Emperor, but when someone of influence strings along people with extreme views, that person runs the risk of later falling victim to those same people for not being “extreme enough.”

Case in point, it’s still wild to me how sheepish President Trump is when it comes to Operation Warp Speed (the fast creation and deployment of the Covid-19 vaccines). It’s the biggest achievement of his first term, and it should be a huge bragging point for him (he brags about everything else), but the conspiracy nuts he often caters to think the vaccine is evil and the virus was basically harmless. Thus, he distances himself from that achievement. Some think he even nominated RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary to repent for it.

Like I said, wild.

Trump decided not to live-stream Nidal Malik Hasan’s execution. Good thing, or bad thing? — Alex D.

Good thing. I’m not convinced Trump was ever on board for live-streaming it. I think that was the brainchild of Pete Hegseth, who comes up with lots of bad ideas.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“They’ve been surprised by the attention, surprised by the affection, surprised by all the letters of love and support they have received.”

The Iran hostage crisis ended on January 20, 1981. 52 American hostages were freed after 444 days in captivity, and were flown home to the United States to return to their former lives. As one would expect, they took different paths and made different life adjustments with their newfound freedom.

In April of that year, I caught up with some of the former hostages for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at Zohran Mamdani’s anti-Israel obsession.

Share

Read more

It’s not a good idea to tell people how they should feel. It makes it sound like you’re the smart one and they’re not bright enough to understand what’s best for them. It’s true in life in general — and especially true in politics.

People feel the way they feel, and all the blue-sky stuff presidents tell them isn’t going to change that.

Joe Biden, a man who’d been around politics since Moses was in short pants, should have understood this. He didn’t. And, as they say, the rest is history.

During his four years in the White House, Mr. Biden repeatedly told the American people that the economy was strong — not simply strong, but that the United States was enjoying one of the strongest economic recoveries in its history.

“America now has the strongest growth, the lowest inflation rate of any major economy in the world,” he said.

“We have the fastest growing economy in the world, the world, the world.”

And near the end of his presidency: “We’re leaving the next President with an inflation rate that’s near 2 percent and an economy stronger than ever.”

There was just one problem: That’s not how millions of Americans felt about the economy.

Read more

The New York Federal Reserve released a research report the other day that included some pretty significant findings on the effect of President Trump’s tariffs on American consumers. The most notable among them was that the inflation we’ve seen on many everyday items, since the beginning of the trade war, has been entirely due to the tariffs.

Not partially, but entirely. Without the tariffs, those items (which included 67 categories of products) would have actually lowered in price to below their prior levels. Instead they saw an inflationary increase of 2.9%.

The study covered economic activity from February of 2025 (when the first tariffs of Trump’s second term were applied) to February of 2026, when the Supreme Court determined the unconstitutionally of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs (the continued effects of which are expected to last until early 2027). It did not include Trump’s latest round of tariffs against Canada (which are further increasing costs for American consumers), nor does it include inflation attributable to the ongoing Iran War.

“The New York Fed’s report offers the clearest evidence yet of the impact of Trump’s tariffs — a core policy of his most recent campaign and second term in the White House — on consumers’ wallets,” reported CNBC’s Alex Harring. “Economists had widely expected his levies to push up prices, though the precise effects had been hard to estimate due to the changing nature of the policy and the lack of transparency on how companies set their prices.”

As high as prices have been, one can only imagine how much worse things would be right now (and in the future) if Trump hadn’t been pressured by bond markets to repeal his most severe tariffs, and the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled against his abuse of the IEEPA.

Trump, of course, was elected in 2024 largely because of Americans’ frustration with high consumer prices under President Biden (most of which were tied to the global economic recovery from the pandemic). What has become increasingly clear, as supported by this study (and several before it), is that the economic relief voters so desperately hoped for back then would have actually arrived… had it not been for Trump’s unilaterally imposed trade war.

When you consider, also, that the trade war hasn’t lived up to any of Trump’s promises (or even his premises), but has managed to add an enormous amount of money to his personal wealth (while alienating a number of U.S. allies and trade partners), it’s no wonder the president’s approval ratings are as dismal as they are. The same goes for the GOP’s midterm prospects (at least according to the polls).

Sure, the midterms are always a referendum on the party of the sitting president, but despite Trump having sidestepped the U.S. Congress entirely by imposing his tariffs through executive actions, congressional Republicans have dirty hands on the issue. Congress could have stopped the trade war before it ever started, or at any time after it began, simply by reclaiming their rightful tariff authority.

Heck, it could have been taken care of in an afternoon.

Instead, out of crippling fear of displeasing the president, the Republican-led Congress has let it go on and on, with Americans literally paying the price for their cowardice. The GOP has even lost its longtime polling advantage as the party Americans most trust to handle the economy. That’s despite a slew of DSA candidates and other Democratic progressives proudly campaigning on their own economically illiterate ideas.

In other words, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. They should have stuck with their free trade principles.

After the midterms, Trump will reach traditional “lame duck” status. At that point, the best thing the U.S. Congress could do for American consumers, as well as our trade partnerships and global economic standing, would be for the parties to work together to further limit and reclaim the president’s tariff authority. This failed, self-enriching experiment needs to end.

Will that actually happen? I’m not optimistic.

Share

The online prediction (betting) sites say Democrats will win both the House and the Senate. I’m curious who YOU think will win both branches of Congress.

Let me know in the polls below…

I’ll announce the results later this week.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

What do you think of the horrifyingly botched attempted execution of Christa Pike? Many death penalty opponents have used the incident as yet another reason to abolish capital punishment altogether. Personally, I think the DP can be justified in the abstract for the most horrendous crimes. I shed no tears for, say, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh. Yet, I have seen too many discrepancies in its application over the years, to think it’s being used justly in practice.

But I also get really annoyed, to say the least, when anti- DP activists go out of their way to minimize the crimes of people on death row. Pike defenders have focused on how she was only 18 when she murdered Colleen Slemmer in 1995, and how she’s “not the same person now”. Yet, they usually omit that she was actually convicted of attempted murder of another inmate in 2001, and attempted to escape in 2012.

I am personally able to say, I oppose the death penalty as it is currently being practiced, without seeing death row inmates as merely helpless victims of the state. But too many people fall into the trap of woobifying the condemned, who are mostly terrible people. And I really hate how the actual victims, of the criminals, so often get forgotten in these debates. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I’m pretty much where you are on this issue. I oppose the death penalty, but I respect the position of those who disagree. What I don’t respect is the portrayal of those on death row as victims rather than as convicts who committed a terrible crime that victimized others.

For the states that still practice the death penalty (which is their right), there should be no margin of error when it comes to executions. Executions need to be as swift and painless as possible, and of course 100% effective. As many have pointed out, we know, as a people, how to do this. Regardless of how one feels about Canada’s practice of medical euthanasia, they euthanize thousands of citizens every year (at those citizens’ request) without the kind of complications we’ve occasionally seen with prisoner executions in the United States. I’ve also seen the argument that we shouldn’t medicalize the process at all, and go back to firing squads (which Pike had actually requested but was denied, I think by law). That too would be better alternative.

The Republicans have been campaigning very hard against “socialism” for a while now, and yet, when VP Vance was asked this week what socialism actually is, he didn’t know the answer. He finally settled on something about replacing American workers with foreign workers, and boys playing in girls sports. Considering how many socialist policies the Trump administration has been pushing, while they point left and yell “socialism!” has the term become meaningless? — Alex D.

In the realm of American politics, Alex, it has indeed become meaningless.

National Review’s Phillip Klein said it well: “Vance has to redefine socialism as ‘things I oppose’ because if he defined it in terms of its actual economic philosophy, he'd agree with much of it.”

The same is true of Trump, others in the administration, and a good number of Republicans who support them.

Sir John — Ben Shapiro recently posted a video of Tucker Carlson stating basically that Germany should have won WWII and that the Allies should have surrendered. WTAF!? OK yes I knew Tucker Carlson had a few screws loose for a while, but this is utterly mind-boggling! How and what caused him to become so F—-ING WiCkED & STUPID!? Did that demonic attack that he allegedly suffered from awhile back bring on some type of demonic possession!? Seriously! How the HELL is he coming up with this excrement!? —“SUCKER CARLSON!” Regards from The Emperor

There’s been lots of speculation over what’s been behind Tucker Carlson’s descent into darkness, Emperor. Some think he’s being paid by foreign entities to spread such nonsense (of which there’s actually some evidence). Some think it’s purely for attention/engagement. Some think it comes from genuine bigotry that’s been emboldened by the excesses of this political era. I think all (or even a combination of the three) are entirely possible.

I also think it’s important to note that while Tucker has gotten worse over time, he’s been deranged like this for the better part of a decade, including when he was still at Fox News (where he pushed all kinds of insane conspiracy theories, lied routinely, and ran cover for America’s enemies including Vladimir Putin). And yet, many on the political right revered him, deferred to him on serious issues, and let him shape perverse narratives that would become their conventional wisdom. This went on until President Trump publicly dressed him down in the summer of 2025 over Carlson’s criticism of the Trump administration helping Israel against Iran. At which point, many on the right, including Senator Ted Cruz (who was previously scared of getting on Carlson’s bad side), decided it was finally okay to start criticizing him, while pretending Carlson had suddenly changed into a different person (which he hadn’t).

I’m glad that more people, including Ben Shapiro (who’s been great on this), are very comfortable doing it now. But it sure would have been better if they had done it much earlier, and not vilified people (like Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes) who did stand up to Carlson. Because again, Carlson shaped a lot of warped and ugly sentiment on the right (that still exists today).

I’ve been cracking up at your “24” posts. I’d forgotten so much about those early episodes. Who’s your favorite character? — Ben G.

Lol. For those reading this, Ben’s referring to my X posts. I’ve been rewatching the great show, 24 (after my wife goes to bed), and reliving some memorable moments with my social-media peeps.

I know this is the conventional pick, but my favorite character really is Jack Bauer. I’ve been a fan of Kiefer Sutherland since I was a kid, and he was perfect on the show. Chloe’s great too, of course. But I’d forgotten, until I rewatched season 4, how entertaining Richard Heller, the defense secretary’s son, was.

Logan Marshall-Green’s portrayal of him was so over the top, but not in a bad or unconvincing way. It was an early role for Marshall-Green, who went on to become a brilliant (and highly underrated) actor.

For those who’ve never seen The Invitation, I’d high recommend it. He’s very good in Devil too.

John: I know like me you are a fiscal conservative, so this question is probably right in your wheelhouse. The situation in France seems like a harbinger of things to come in the United States. Decades of deficit spending have finally caught up to them (they last had a budget surplus in 1974), and France is having to cut basic services in education. This has led to violent protests, encouraged by French leftist politicians. The same ingredients seem to exist over on this side of the pond: Low social trust, low trust in the government, yet high expectations for cradle-to-grave government services. When the math ain’t mathin’ anymore, you get rioting in the streets. Is this about to happen in the U.S? — Steve R.

It reminds me a lot of the Greek debt crisis, that came to a head in 2009-2010, and continued on for almost a decade (with years of EU bailouts).

And yes, the United States is headed toward a catastrophic debt crisis of its own (we’re really already in it), which will be extremely ugly and extremely painful for millions of Americans when it comes to a head. And when that happens, we’ll have only ourselves to blame, because the crisis has been predicted, and supported by the math, for many years. And we’ve chosen to do nothing to avoid or even soften it. In fact, we’ve carelessly accelerated and deepened it.

By “we,” I’m talking about American voters and both major political parties. The numbers have been on display, for all to see, for a long time. The major drivers of our national debt, by far, are our major entitlement programs. They’re broken because they were made for a different era. They’re in desperate need of reform, and have been for many years. The Democratic Party has long denied this, and has demagogued every Republican effort to deal with the situation. Republicans abandoned the efforts themselves at the behest of Donald Trump, once he became the party’s leader and our president a decade ago. Trump promised to veto any major-entitlement reform legislation, and punish any Republican(s) who tried to pass any such bill. The Republican members of congress who actually took this issue seriously (like Paul Ryan) have been chased out of politics for being insufficiently servile to Trump.

And so now, here we are — racing off the edge of a fiscal cliff, while we focus almost all of our political energy on culture-war battles, and dealing with the excesses of Donald Trump and the woke mob. Congratulations, everyone.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“He’s an air traffic controller on sick leave — traumatic sick leave.”

One of the more memorable decisions of Ronald Reagan’s presidency was his firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers in August of 1981.

A few months before that happened, as union discussions with the FAA were still ongoing, I covered the stresses faced by air traffic controllers — and one individual in particular — for the CBS Evening News. Back then, as you can probably gather from the report, the job was much more dependent on human interaction.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about increasingly bad news for Republicans in the midterms, taxpayer funded Trump ads, and Democrats politicizing the Cornell legal case.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Not that it matters to Donald Trump, but a lot of Americans are not fans.

They don’t like his public vulgarity, his narcissism, his appetite for vengeance — and a lot more. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the catch-all diagnosis his supporters like to apply to anyone who finds him objectionable.

They may have another condition brought on by the president. There’s a good chance they’re suffering from … Trump Fatigue.

I know the symptoms because I have it.

Every day with this president, something new hits the fan. Trump may need a daily dose of chaos, but the rest of us don’t. Chaos and controversy may be his oxygen. They may be what energize him. But after all these years, they’re what wear a lot of us out.

And there’s rarely time to digest one controversy before the next one comes barreling down the road and smacks us in the mouth.

Read more