Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Good news on growth, bad news on inflation: “The pace of price increases stepped up in September, keeping inflation well above the Federal Reserve’s target, while the economy grew faster than expected in the third quarter, according to Commerce Department reports Thursday.”

* That we knew this was coming doesn’t make it any easier to swallow (or inhale): “President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration is ‘terminating’ a Biden-era rule that aimed to cut planet-warming emissions of methane from oil and gas drilling. Trump said during a campaign rally in Texas that the change would save companies and consumers billions of dollars and unlock 210 million barrels of oil. That’s equivalent to about 10 days of U.S. petroleum consumption.”

* The obvious call: “A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request for an emergency order that would have forced California to set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom the Department of Homeland Security has identified as ‘likely’ noncitizens.”

* Another heartening ruling: “Chronically ill people on Medicaid won’t be bound by new work requirement rules that the latest Trump administration guidance requires in order to qualify for ‘medically frail’ exemptions, a federal judge ruled Thursday.”

* The White House’s pal in Pyongyang wants attention again: “North Korea launched a barrage of ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters Thursday, South Korea’s military said, days after the North threatened to resume front-line propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts and deploy new weapons along the rivals’ tense border. The launches also followed leader Kim Jong Un’s surprise weekend visit to China, the North’s main ally and economic pipeline, to push for greater cooperation.”

* Putting the government back together again is going to be a dramatic undertaking: “President Donald Trump has overseen the departure of about 1 in every 5 government workers since the start of his second term, a faster and deeper overhaul than under any recent predecessor, a Washington Post analysis found. By some metrics, Black people — who have historically made up a larger portion of government employees compared with their share of the population — were hit hardest, The Post found.”

* Trump doesn’t often surprise me, but I’ll confess I didn’t see this latest rhetorical trend coming: “Trump has long had a penchant for complimenting — or disparaging — the physical appearances of his allies and enemies alike. But a new analysis by The Washington Sun shows that Trump has referenced physical appearance almost three times as much in the past year as he did during the same period in the 2016 campaign.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Thursday’s Mini-Report, 10.29.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

If you spend enough time paying attention to political messaging, you’ll inevitably hear about “dog whistle” politics. The idea is straightforward: Just as actual dog whistles can only be heard by canines, officials and candidates often use coded language to deliver subtle messages to targeted audiences in ways that are not immediately obvious to everyone else.

Donald Trump and his allies have been using these rhetorical tactics quite a bit lately.

On Wednesday afternoon, for example, the official “war room” account for the president’s political operation published an item to social media that read, “Which way Western Man?” The typical person might not have given this much thought, but it’s quite likely that fascists recognized the phrasing immediately.

Last year a Newsweek report supplied the relevant context after Trump’s Department of Homeland Security pushed a similar message:

The Trump administration has been accused of quoting a white supremacist who was backed by a Neo-Nazi group, as part of its social media campaign to recruit immigration enforcement agents.

In a post shared to X on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said “Which way, American man?”, a quote appearing to reference Which Way, Western Man, a 1978 book by the avowed white supremacist William Gayley Simpson, who argued Hitler was right and Jews must be killed.

The post from the president’s official “war room” account came three weeks after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin published an item of his own via social media that accused the left of trying to “vandalize the demographics of America.”

For some generous observers, it might be tempting to give the Republican administration the benefit of the doubt, but there’s also a track record to consider. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

The posts have referred to neo-Nazi literature, ethnic cleansing and QAnon conspiracies, mused about deporting nearly a third of the U.S. population, and promoted lyrics from an anthem bellowed by the far-right militants of the Proud Boys.

Their authors are not on society’s fringe. They are in the offices of the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, using official government accounts.

The article highlighted several messages, including one from January in which the White House and DHS jointly posted a recruitment ad for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The message began, “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.”

It wasn’t long before observers noted this same phrase is the name of a song, which, as the Times noted, was written by members of a self-described “pro-White fraternal order” and has been embraced by white nationalist groups.

To be sure, administration officials have repeatedly denied that they’re trying to send signals to right-wing extremists and have insisted that the rhetorical similarities are coincidental.

That said, William Braniff, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, told the Times that one or two posts might be easy to overlook. But “when you add it all together,” Braniff said, “it’s much harder to dismiss.”

The post Team Trump pushes notorious phrase linked to white supremacists (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

When Ben Carson led the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he faced a variety of controversies, but one of the most embarrassing involved furniture he bought for his office at taxpayer expense. In one especially memorable congressional hearing, the then-secretary offered a rambling, and at times contradictory, explanation for the spending, initially saying the furniture was necessary in part for “security” reasons, before ultimately blaming his wife.

Around the same time, then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also spent more than $43,000 to install a soundproof phone booth in his office for reasons that never made any sense.

Nothing of consequence came of the incidents, even if the controversies might have served as cautionary tales for future Cabinet members: It’s best to exercise caution when it comes to public funds and office decor.

It’s a lesson Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who actually served alongside Carson in the first Trump administration, failed to learn. The New York Times reported:

Linda McMahon, the education secretary, plans to spend $43,000 on new furniture for her government office, a work space makeover that comes as she lobbies Congress to shut down her department.

Ms. McMahon’s team has informed Congress that her current furniture is worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space,” according to Education Department records reviewed by The New York Times that have not been publicly disclosed.

I know effectively nothing about interior design, but I suppose “cannot be … aesthetically integrated” is another way of saying “looks funny.”

The amount of money is notable in its own right, but that McMahon wants to spend money on furnishing an office she doesn’t think should exist adds an element to the story that makes it unavoidably worse.

Two Democratic senators — Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies — wrote to the secretary this week, pressing her to abandon her spending plans.

“It has come to our attention that as you cut off funding for students, push out staff, and do all you can to illegally dismantle the very department you lead, you plan to spend $43,278.64 on new furniture for your own office,” the senators wrote. “You vowed to put yourself out of a job; now you expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab to refurnish your own office.”

“Secretary McMahon, you have asked students, families, and teachers across the country to endure extraordinarily painful cuts in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility,’ and you have pushed out nearly half of the staff at the Department,” they added. “This year, you have asked Congress to slash funding for important K-12 programs and to cut funding for higher education programs by nearly $5 billion. But it is clear that you do not think that you should have to abide by the same rules you want to apply to others.”

Murray and Baldwin concluded, “The American people are sick of the corruption, sick of the waste, and sick of the hypocrisy coming out of all corners of this administration.”

The Education Department’s press secretary told the Times the agency was “saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” in large part by moving to smaller offices as part of the broader effort to dismantle the department altogether. It’s a line McMahon is likely to repeat the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.

The post ‘Sick of the waste’: Democrats seize on Linda McMahon’s office furniture flap appeared first on MS NOW.

For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.

After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.

This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.

Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump published four separate rants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.

On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.

Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”

For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.

There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.

That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.

The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.

Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.

Similar tactics have been common in Alaska for a while, including in 2010, when some of Murkowski’s critics encouraged people with similar names to register as write-in candidates.

Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.

The post Eyeing Alaska, Trump and Republicans pick a fight over campaign mischief they can’t win appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In Kansas’ U.S. Senate race, the Rev. Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee, joked Wednesday that that he considers it “a great compliment” that national Republican leaders keep campaigning in his home state.

“It tells me that they are terrified that they’re going to lose this race — and they should be,” he said.

Soon after, the latest CNN poll in Kansas showed Hamilton leading incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, 49% to 45%.

* In Texas’ U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democratic state Rep. James Talarico leading Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 49% to 43%, although most other recent polling has pointed to a closer race.

* In Maine’s U.S. Senate race, the same CNN poll also found Democrat Troy Jackson ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, 49% to 45%.

* In Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed leading former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 49% to 42%, which is also a wider margin than we’ve seen in other recent high-quality polls.

* MS NOW’s polling averages for the races above, compiled by data partner FiftyPlusOne, are broken out here.

* In Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has made another final-week investment, hoping to boost local prosecutor Scott Colom in his surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

* In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, the latest Marquette Law School Poll found Democrat David Crowley leading Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, 51% to 44%.

* Though Louisiana has been generally considered one of the least competitive states in this year’s election cycle, Donald Trump announced that he will lead “a major TeleRally” on Monday night in support of Republican Rep. Julia Letlow’s Senate candidacy. With so many other competitive races on the ballot, it’s not clear why the president would spend the night before Election Day focused on helping Letlow in a race she’s all but certain to win anyway.

* In a key congressional race in Pennsylvania, No Going Back, a group affiliated with Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC, recently tried to boost Republican Rep. Scott Perry with an attack ad targeting Democrat Janelle Stelson. The ad included unsubstantiated allegations that were so problematic that a Harrisburg-area television station pulled the commercial from the air. This is the first and only instance from this election cycle that a campaign ad has been pulled by a station.

* And in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, Axios reported that Republican officials are increasingly convinced that Vivek Ramaswamy’s notorious attack ad is poised to cost him the election. At a Wednesday night rally in the Buckeye State, Trump nevertheless defended the ad and said it had merit.

The post Thursday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.29.26: Poll shows Hamilton leading in Kansas appeared first on MS NOW.

The closer we get to Election Day, the more hysterical Republican rhetoric has become when targeting Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan. Donald Trump, predictably, has helped lead the slanderous charge, condemning the candidate as a “jihadist” who “should not be allowed to serve in our Senate.”

As is too often the case, the rest of the party has followed the president’s lead and headed for the gutter. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said El-Sayed “sleeps in a bin Laden jersey.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaigned in Michigan this week and thought it would be good idea to trash the scientific and literary accomplishments of a half-billion Arab Muslims. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas this week explicitly said that “there is a very real risk that Americans will die” if El-Sayed is elected and serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But it was something Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said during a Wednesday night rally that stood out as unusual.

Moreno: "Rogers is in a race w/ somebody that is an affront to me as an American. El-Sayed can be nowhere near DC. Do you think he understands that concept that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near DC & Rogers is going to kick his ass."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-28T22:56:58.048Z

Making the case to Buckeye State voters who can’t cast ballots in Michigan’s Senate race, the GOP senator suggested that El-Sayed should be disqualified from serving in the chamber because he does not accept divinity of Jesus Christ.

“This character, Abdul El-Sayed, can be nowhere near Washington, D.C.,” Moreno said. “Do you think he understands that concept, that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near Washington, D.C., and [Republican candidate] Mike Rogers is going to kick his ass on Tuesday.”

So, a few things.

First, whether Moreno understood this or not, he was speaking at a rally that was intended to generate support for the GOP ticket in Ohio — a ticket led in part by Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republicans’ gubernatorial candidate, who is Hindu.

Second, when Moreno was sworn in as a senator, he swore to support and defend the Constitution, which includes Article VI, clause 3 — a provision that says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And third, as Moreno really ought to know, roughly 1 in 3 Americans are not Christians, and the idea that they should be disqualified from congressional service because of their beliefs is plainly insane. Indeed, let’s not forget that there are Jewish Republicans in Congress and the White House Cabinet who would disagree with the senator’s belief that that “Jesus came here for our salvation.”

If Republicans want to try to influence the outcome of Michigan’s race, fine. That’s a normal part of the political discourse. But I’d be interested in knowing how many other Republicans agree with Moreno’s suggestion that religious minorities should be excluded from serving in the Senate.

The post GOP’s Moreno targets El-Sayed with a religious test that even many Republicans can’t pass appeared first on MS NOW.

A couple of months ago, Donald Trump announced plans to create a new national military academy, which he called the U.S. Space Academy. “You think of West Point, and you think of Annapolis, and you think of the Air Force Academy, and you think of the Coast Guard Academies,” the president said. “Great, they’re all great, but we’re going to have now the Space Force.”

It’s not altogether clear exactly what Space Academy graduates would do, but if the Republican’s plans are implemented, this will be the first new federal military academy opened in the United States since 1954.

The White House also hasn’t said where exactly this service academy would be. As it turns out, the president has some thoughts on the matter, which he shared at his latest campaign rally. NBC News reported:

Trump pledged to establish the new U.S. Space Force academy in Ohio, but only if Sen. Jon Husted wins re-election next week.

“And I wanted you to know that if Jon Husted wins, I am going to consider putting the Space Academy right here, if you win,” Trump said.

He added that “every state” wants the Space Force academy (itself a dubious claim), but that Ohio will be the one to get it — if Ohioans vote the way he wants them to in a Senate race.

If former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown prevails, Trump can still deliver the service academy to the Buckeye State, but by his own admission, he won’t. For the president, this is a transaction: He’s prepared to deliver a treat to Ohio, but it’s conditional on his satisfaction with a specific election, which has literally nothing to do with the Space Force or its academy.

This has become a staple of his midterm messaging:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: The president told an Ohio audience he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they didn’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elected a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Oct. 20: The president told a North Carolina audience he would settle claims related to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, but only if Republican candidates won. “If we don’t win, there’s no money,” Trump declared. “If we do win, you’re getting it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (Last week in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

In case this isn’t obvious, nothing about a Democratic-led Congress would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to these states or constituencies. The president made the commitments conditional, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest transactional pitch: Space Force academy is conditional on election outcome appeared first on MS NOW.

As the ninth month of the war with Iran gets underway, there’s new reason to believe the simmering conflict is poised to turn hot again. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said.

“The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations.”

It stands to reason that U.S. military planners would have a lot on their plate right now, which made it all the more notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to have fired the Pentagon official chiefly responsible for planning. The Atlantic reported:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon’s chief planner, Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, was ousted from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No explanation was given. This comes at an inopportune moment, given that President Trump may be planning to relaunch the war on Iran. Sylvia, the former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, becomes the latest in a long line of senior officers who have been shown the door since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon almost two years ago.

No replacement for Sylvia was named, and it is unclear who will take over his responsibilities.

The Washington Post published a related piece, noting that none of the relevant players commented on the development, but adding that Sylvia’s “online biography appears to have been removed from the Joint Staff website.”

The same report went on to note, “Sylvia’s abrupt removal has infuriated colleagues, who saw him as a battle-tested and thoughtful leader.”

But while the public waits for additional details about why the hapless defense secretary did this — Sylvia had been targeted by Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who often advises President Donald Trump — the larger context is tough to ignore: Two months ago, The New York Times reported that Hegseth’s personnel moves have been so dramatic that he has left the U.S. Army “essentially rudderless” during an ongoing war in the Middle East.

And yet it’s hard to imagine that more dramatic personnel moves are going to put a rudder back on the U.S. military.

I’ve spent months documenting the scope and scale of the former Fox News host’s relentless purge, which has affected every branch of the armed forces and which has grown so serious that it’s fueling congressional plans to impeach Hegseth.

But with the president in his corner, the secretary doesn’t appear to care — about the pushback, the fallout, the outrage or the consequences.

Political scientist Caitlin Talmadge, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who specializes in foreign policy and military operations, noted via social media earlier this year, “Firing senior officers for cause is one thing. Firing them repeatedly on this scale and with no explanation is unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

The practical effects matter. Over the last year, a great many critics have expressed concerns that Hegseth is destabilizing the U.S. military. In fact, The New York Times reported last fall that the secretary had fired or sidelined so many officials “with little explanation” that he’d created “an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust” within the department.

Politico published a similar report the month before, noting that the secretary’s firings have “injected a fresh wave of fear into the Pentagon over the cost of speaking up and who might be next.”

Early last year, five former defense secretaries, including retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, condemned the pattern of firings as “reckless.” In a joint letter to Congress, they asked the House and Senate to hold “immediate hearings to assess the national security implications” of the dismissals.

Hegseth and the administration appear to have ignored those concerns; the purge is still going on; and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill have scheduled no such hearings — though that seems likely to change if there’s a Democratic majority next year.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq and now serves on the House Armed Services Committee, spoke to Politico about Hegseth’s purges, which the congressman described as politically motivated.

“That’s a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,” Moulton said. “That’s the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea.”

The Massachusetts Democrat made those comments a year ago. The problem is far worse now.

For his part, Hegseth testified on Capitol Hill in April and defended the pattern during congressional testimony, telling lawmakers who asked about his personnel purge, “Under Barack Obama, 197 general officers were removed. So this is not something specific to this administration.”

We learned soon after that the statistic the secretary cited was entirely made up and had no basis in fact. Whether or not Hegseth is prepared to acknowledge the facts, he’s removed more senior military leaders than any defense secretary in recent American history.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hegseth purges yet another top general, intensifying controversy appeared first on MS NOW.

As the final week before the midterm elections got underway, the political world’s focus turned to, of all things, the Cheesecake Factory.

Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail in Michigan over the weekend and took aim at his Republican successor on a variety of fronts, but the former Democratic president seemed to take a degree of pleasure in mocking Donald Trump’s misplaced priorities.

Spending a little time on the incumbent’s obsession with renovations and interior design, Obama noted Trump turning the Oval Office into a showcase for gold curios. “He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” the former president said to hearty laughter.

Predictably, Trump and his allies spent the ensuing days (a) whining incessantly about Obama having hurt his successor’s feelings; (b) defending the Cheesecake Factory, which obviously wasn’t the target of the joke; and (c) celebrating the Republican’s redecorating efforts, effectively proving Obama’s point about Trump fixating on renovations instead of his duties.

On Wednesday night, Obama returned to the stump, this time in Georgia, where he took some time to reflect on the truly bizarre reaction to his line from days earlier.

"The president wasn't even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison! But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory" — here's Obama's full riff about the "phony outrage" over his Trump/Cheesecake Factory comments and how it illustrates that "these are not serious people"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-29T00:42:53.539Z

After beginning his riff talking about how much time he and his family spent at the Cheesecake Factory, especially as his daughters were growing up, Obama noted, “Of course, the real problem is, prices have gotten so high a lot of folks can barely afford to go out to eat.”

“So you would think that this administration would be spending time worrying about that,” he continued. “But that was the interesting thing about how the administration responded to the speech I gave the other day. They did not dispute what I said about them being directly responsible for rising prices; they did not argue with that. They did not deny tariffs were contributing to higher costs for families; they didn’t say anything about that. I accused this administration, based on the facts, that they were engaging in unprecedented levels of corruption; they didn’t say anything about that.

“The president wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison. That part didn’t bother him. But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory comment. He took great umbrage. He said I didn’t understand the work of the ‘artisans’ in the White House.

“It’s all crazy, but this was the really crazy part: They mobilized a whole-of-government response to that joke — not to inflation, but to that joke.”

After highlighting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s weird event at a Cheesecake Factory earlier this week, the former president concluded, “To everybody out there, including the press, I want you to understand this: This is what I mean when I say these are not serious people. They don’t have solutions to actual problems, so they’d rather have the media and you talking about the Cheesecake Factory. That’s the game they’ve been playing for the last two years. Just keep throwing distractions out there. Attacks, fabrications, phony outrage, and hope that you won’t notice that your bills are higher and your life is tougher.”

As luck would have it, right around the same time that Obama was speaking in Atlanta, the incumbent president was delivering remarks of his own in Ohio, where he spent even more time talking about how impressed he was with himself for devoting so much attention to White House renovations.

“President Obama, who doesn’t understand cleanliness, who doesn’t understand broken, cracked stone and sidewalk, who doesn’t understand that having asphalt going to your main entrance is not the right thing,” the Republican said. “We’d like to have granites and marbles. We’d like to have it look nice. You don’t use asphalt.”

He then proceeded to share some additional thoughts on asphalt, which probably isn’t the message his political operation had in mind for the election season’s closing days, though it went a long way toward proving Obama’s point.

The post Obama skewers Trump again, says he ‘wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison’ appeared first on MS NOW.