The Daly Weekly (9/25)

Government funded campaign ads, “banned” books, JD Vance, and 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):

Now, let’s get to your questions…

---

Fox News is now running literal campaign ads for Donald Trump that are “Paid for by the U.S Government.” How is this possibly legal? — Alex D.

First of all, you aren’t kidding about it being a campaign ad, Alex. It’s not some PSA message (contrary to what some are saying). It is irrefutably a political campaign ad for Trump himself, featuring his image over and over again, his campaign slogans, supposed political achievements, people praising him, and women singing “love me” a bunch of times. And yes, the caption at the end says it was paid for by the U.S. Government (aka U.S. taxpayers).

For those who haven’t seen the commercial, here it is:

This shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: This is a completely unethical use of taxpayers’ money, and it should bother every self-respecting American that the federal government is doing this. As for whether it’s illegal, I’m guessing it probably is (based on the Hatch Act). Lawyers are probably already looking into it.

John, sorry for the longer question today. I want to return to the subject of “banned books”, something we have discussed before in this space, because I continue to see it in local bookstore news. “Banned books” seems to be one more term whose definition is intentionally expanded by the left in an effort to be more empowered in their victimhood. The usual understanding of book bans comes from Nazi Germany, where the Nazis began a campaign of extreme censorship in the 1930’s to erase all ideas opposed to fascist ideology. This took the form of public book burnings and outlawing the ownership of certain publications. The 21st Century definition now includes books that are either removed or not allowed in school libraries due to their age appropriateness. To me, this is discretion and not censorship. If I can freely pick up a book at Barnes & Noble or order it from Amazon, it’s not "banned". When I was in high school, a group of friends and I were gathered around a Sports Illustrated when a librarian became suspicious and asked us what we were reading. When she realized it was the SI Swimsuit Edition, she took it from us. Nobody thought our rights were being violated; we just thought we were getting away with something. As a professional writer, what are your thoughts? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. There are some conservatives I very much respect (including Jonah Goldberg) who get really bent out of shape over the “Banned Books” section in bookstores (I’ve teased Jonah about this). I don’t disagree with their reasoning (some of which you described above), and I agree that it is indeed false phrasing, but I guess don’t see it in as nefarious terms as others do. I think it’s largely just a cheap and tacky marketing strategy to sell books.

John DAiLY, how could you say this?: “Trump himself clearly doesn't even care about [the midterms].” President Trump will be campaigning next two months to WIN. — Conrad P.

Because, my dear Conrad, if President Trump were truly worried about the GOP losing congressional majorities, he wouldn’t have endorsed (as he has many times over the years) highly problematic primary candidates (like Ken Paxton) over stronger and safer general-election candidates (like incumbent John Cornyn). His super PAC wouldn’t be withholding hundreds of millions of pledged campaigned dollars from Republican congressional candidates. He wouldn’t be forcing the needless continuation of high consumer prices with his ridiculous trade policies (which have lost Republicans their long-standing polling advantage on the economy). He wouldn’t be shamelessly profiting off the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars, and directing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to his personal vanity projects (which further torches the Republican brand, and highlights the party’s refusal to hold him accountable for anything). He also wouldn’t be cozying up to, praising, and normalizing Zohran Mamdani, who many congressional Republicans and their campaigns have made the face of their opposition.

I’ve never heard a compelling case that Trump genuinely cares about the Republican Party (beyond it being loyal to him). What he cares about is Donald Trump.

Oh, and if Trump were truly worried about a socialist takeover of the country (as you and he insist he is), he wouldn’t be governing as the most socialist president of my lifetime (as demonstrated by him taking government stakes in dozens of private companies, massive tariffs, corporate welfare, price controls, $5,000 “dividend” checks, export bans, etc.).

Sir John: Donald Trump was addressing the UN and he mentioned that he is conflicted about what to do about the Iran war situation. He wonders if the IRGC will come to their senses and make an historic deal with him and make Iran great again, or should he blow them to smithereens. Trump says he won’t make that decision until after the midterm elections. He added that the Iranians need to realize that no matter what happens during the midterms, Trump is still going to be president. Well, OK but that doesn’t solve the problem NOW which I believe that I & many Americans want solved. Why doesn’t he solve the situation now, and be done with it and blow them to smithereens since the IRGC members don’t want to make a deal with him? Seriously what does Trump hope to accomplish by waiting until after the midterms when the Republicans will probably get shellacked anyway? Doesn’t Trump realize that the IRGC is counting on Democrat victories to thwart any of Trump’s plans for victory over the IRGC? —“Hit Or Get Off The Pot” Regards from The Emperor

It’s often a challenge, Emperor, to try and make sense of President Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks, so I’ll address the broader points here…

The timing of the midterms shouldn’t have anything to do with our Iran strategy. If Trump’s consciously holding off on employing something until after the midterms, that would likely mean that that “something” would make the Republican Party even less popular than they currently are. (That said, I again don’t think Trump cares much about the GOP congress, nor the Republican Party as a whole).

As far as “blowing them to smithereens,” it’s sometimes hard to tell if Trump is referring to the Iranian regime or the entire country of Iran (he seems to go back and forth on that). If he’s talking about the latter (which won’t happen), that would obviously be psychotic and amount to massive war crimes. If he’s talking about the former, it’s easier said than done, because what’s left of the regime is quite scattered throughout the country (for their own survival). Airstrikes alone aren’t going to bring regime change in Iran (which doesn’t seem to have ever been the plan in the first place). Regime change would require ground troops and/or arming Iranian opposition (which is still reeling from earlier this year). And thus far, Trump hasn’t had the appetite for that.

Good point on the Reagan podcast this week about JD Vance sharing many of the same views as Michael Moore 20 years ago. I’d never thought of that, but both economically and on foreign policy, he sure does! — Ben G.

Thanks. They assuredly have differences on social issues, but there’s A LOT about today’s Right that lines up closely with yesterday’s (and even today’s) Left. Vance is an especially good example. A lot of people just haven’t noticed it, because ideological differences have been replaced with reflexive tribalism.

---

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