Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Which View of DeSantis Is Correct?
There are basically two perspectives on Governor Ron DeSantis: (1) committed anti-woke warrior who would pursue an America First-style agenda without the character flaws of President Trump, or (2) a Trump-killer politician being propped up by the GOPe to restore the Republican wing of the uniparty to power in the White House.
The former perspective reflects a lot of negative press by progressive media and favorable press by conservative media. The latter view has been long held by Sundance at the Conservative Tree House and is gaining adherents by former fans of the Governor. One example is Roger L. Simon writing for The Epoch Times:
But I didn’t know … how [the attack on Disney] was all something of a charade. As I started to learn this, not just from the outsider candidate, but elsewhere too, I began to revise my opinion of the Florida governor….
What we need now more than ever is real, not faux, transparency.
For a while, Trump has been telling us everything good that was done by DeSantis was copied from him. I used to think that was unfair. Now, I wonder.
What is causing (accelerating) this change of heart? Well, it turns out while talking a strong game against Disney, DeSantis has actually been preserving some perks for it. Per Simon, Vivek Ramaswamy has pointed out some things:
- DeSantis signed a political anti-discrimination statute that penalized companies for engaging in viewpoint-based censorship on the internet. This was a signature piece of legislation in his anti-woke crusade, but the law specifically exempts companies in Florida that own a theme park larger than 25 acres. Disney’s internet properties and streaming services were exempted from a statute that was designed to stem corporate ‘wokeness’ in Florida.”
- Current Florida tech legislation has new loopholes for Disney.
A DeSantis-supported 2023 bill to safeguard technology companies from harvesting Floridians’ personal information is written in a way that would include traditional technology companies that own and operate internet properties − but not Disney − by applying to companies only if their online advertising accounts for 50% of the company’s revenue, despite Disney’s advanced online advertisement business.This is part of a broader pattern of behavior for DeSantis, a bait-and-switch headline strategy with respect to supposedly woke companies that he goes out of his way to protect.
-
DeSantis’ supposed reining in of BlackRock’s ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investment in Florida is also eyewash. “DeSantis purported to take BlackRock to task by prominently announcing that Florida’s treasury would yank $2 billion in assets from the financial services company. .. [T]he move was just a PR stunt. The money Florida pulled wasn’t even causing the real ESG-related trouble. Florida claimed it pulled the money because it didn’t want to “fund BlackRock’s social engineering project.” But BlackRock pursues its environmental, social and governance investing strategy mainly via its clients’ stock holdings, where BlackRock leverages its position as the largest “shareholder” in American companies to push environmental and social goals. Florida’s $2 billion was largely in cash and bonds, not stocks, and it represented a fraction of the $13 billion total Florida had invested in BlackRock funds.”
Simon stills finds lot to love about Gov. DeSantis. As do I. But we have now had decades of Republicans taking stands against progressivism to generate campaign contributions, electoral support and enthusiasm amongst the conservative punditry, only to sit back and enjoy the scrimmage over the 50-yard line rather than moving the ball down the field as progressives do.
GOPe support for DeSantis is a red flag of sorts. Whether you personally like President Trump or not, the policies he pursued –by and large–were good for America and consistent with our constitutional system (unlike the current and predecessor regimes). He was stabbed in the back by GOPe whenever they felt free to do so, and thus attenuated what should have been a remarkable assault on progressivism. And they seem to do this consistently.
So the question is: which view of DeSantis is correct: anti-woke warrior or GOPe operative? Or is there a third option?
Published in General
Correction: the “eventual” nominee. Trump had not won the nomination at that point when asked in the town hall meeting by Anderson Cooper if he still supports the pledge that he signed to support the eventual republican nominee. Trump responded “”No, I don’t anymore. No, we’ll see who it is.”
Before he won the nomination he said he would not honor his written agreement to support the eventual winner. By your definition then, Trump was lying. Hence, you cannot complain about the other candidates “lying.”
Here’s the actual wording. They don’t use the word “support,” they use the word “endorse.”
“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” the pledge reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”
There’s a difference between complaining and pointing out that the others were lying. They were lying and nothing Trump said or did changes that. Trump had left himself an out by saying he would support the eventual nominee if he felt the process was fair. So the most he’s guilty of is typical politician weasel words.
I could cut Cruz some slack if he actually said that he refused to support The Orange One because of the remarks made about Cruz’s wife. In fact, I’d have cut him some slack if he’d given Trump a swift kick in the pills over that.
Is he allowed to run ads if he hasn’t declared yet?
https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-president-campaign-ads/43797481
“The Republican Florida governor has yet to announce that he plans to challenge a field of more than half a dozen GOP contenders, including his former mentor, former President Donald Trump.
“But the recent TV and digital ads come from a pro-DeSantis political action committee called Never Back Down, launched by former Trump loyalists.
“In one ad airing in South Carolina and New Hampshire, the camera drifts off a fuzzy picture of Trump to news clippings of a victorious DeSantis as the former MAGA voter replaces his Trump bumper sticker with that of his former protégé.”
Apparently a reference to the Never Back Down PAC and not DeSantis’ own campaign.
That is just an excuse to explain away Trump’s broken pledge. He signed the paper that stated specifically “I, Donald Trump, affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is.” And he did not say he would support the eventual nominee if he felt the system was fair, when asked about it, he said “No, I don’t anymore. No, we’ll see who it is.” That is exactly the same broken pledge that you are disparaging the other candidates for. I could just as easily find excuses for why they backed off on their pledges, too.
You are the guy who said a “broken promise” is not a lie. You will excuse everyone’s lies except those you claim Trump committed. ’nuff said on that point.
Trump said prior to the signing that he wanted “fair” treatment. Treatment that he never received. That was why he refused to raise his hand on stage the month before written pledge came up. You must have missed it.
Trump is not an admirable character but to claim he is unique in that regard among the original 17 candidates in 2016 is simple stupidity.
I have no other comments to make.
I only have one comment. Declaring that you’re withdrawing the pledge before a winner was determined is different than reneging after it was decided. Withdrawing may not be cool, but it isn’t lying or breaking a promise either; it’s withdrawing a promise before it’s time to pony up.
In the meantime, has anyone seen the video of Trump’s townhall on CNN? Anyone have a link to the video. I have not been able to find one.
Smart politicians can say truths in a non-offensive way. Dumb politicians say things in an offensive way. You probably do this with your spouse. How about an example. Wife says to husband for the third time, “Your were late for our dinner appointment and didn’t call.” Husband Alfie says, “I am sorry. I got pulled into a meeting with my boss and the CEO.” Husband Berto says, “You are nasty. My time is my time.” Which one has loses a vote and which one wins a vote? Now imagine if that is done in front of all voters. A few people will laugh, but many, many, many women will be permanently offended. Words matter.
Sure. Words matter.
Men can get pregnant. Women don’t have penises. George Floyd wasn’t actually murdered. Etc.
“Smart” politicians don’t go near any of that, and anyone who does will be offensive. We’re way past time for that kind of “smart”. In reality that kind of smart works out to timid, incompetent, or fake.
That’s not what happened. Kaitlan Collins was being nasty, and letting nasty people be nasty doesn’t get us anywhere good.
Your analogy fails because 1) the relationship and dynamics involved aren’t and shouldn’t be the same as husband and wife, and 2) the wife in your example wasn’t being nasty so a harsh reaction from the husband would have been uncalled for, but at the townhall Kaitlan Collins was being nasty and it was uncalled for.
Besides, unlike the chances of having a good relationship with your wife, we’re not getting the votes of the Kaitlan Collinses of the world. Ever. Ron DeSantis won’t, Vivek Ramaswamy won’t, Nicki Haley won’t.
The only reasons to do a CNN thing like that are 1) to speak directly to the audience, above and around the nasty gatekeepers and fake narratives, 2) to show up the nasty gatekeepers and liars as nasty gatekeepers and liars.
If a politician delivers on the big issues I care about, I consider it a plus not a negative if he attracts significant support from people who don’t think like me. It speaks to electability. A past history of delivering results is one way to tell if good results will be delivered in the next job and DeSantis has quite a good record on just that.
AFAIK He is the most conservative of the plausible candidates that will likely be running this time. So Its hard for me to believe he is a stooge for some moderate wing of a figurative globalist uniparty. If it is true, it would be one of the biggest bait and switches in political history. Almost up there with 2020 when candidate Biden was sold as a competent moderate who would unify the country. :)
My biggest question about DeSantis is can he attract enough votes to win. We will find out soon enough when the primaries start rolling.
I do think he will need to pound different issues like the economy and the border to broaden his appeal.
How did it happen that we suddenly had ten million more new registered voters in 2020, over 2016?
Never before in our history has the public witnessed ten million more voters registered from one Pres election to the next.
Plus on order to arrive at the official number of ballots cast – no one would be allowed to stay home or avoid sending in the mail in ballots. This alone boggles my mind – typically half the nation does not bother to vote.
It is almost like some major political party helped people out by mailing in their mail in ballots for them!
(I would be willing to concede that Biden won. But I never can accept the numbers of ballots supposedly cast.)
That is very good news to report.
Terence I’m not claiming DeSantis “is a stooge for some moderate wing of a figurative globalist uniparty”. I infer some doubt on your part as to whether there really is a moderate wing of a globalist uniparty. I believe there is such a thing, and I hear that that wing is throwing funds and support to DeSantis. I don’t like the game of having to defend the actions of others, but I think it’s a legit question: what does the moderate wing of a globalist uniparty think they’re going to get from DeSantis? If DeSantis is a more broadly attractive and potentially more effective MAGA/AF guy, then why would the uniparty support him? Do they really think he can win the general? Do they really want him to win the general? I suspect they think his battle with Trump will wreck the MAGA/AF movement.
I was simply trying to play by your rules. I still don’t consider it a lie.
I was never claiming that Trump was unique among the 17 candidates, nor was I excusing any other candidates from their broken pledges. Three candidates (that I know of) definitely broke their pledges to endorse the eventual winner of the primary, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and John Kasich. The only reason I have been harping on this issue is because the complaint comes up quite often that “other candidates” broke their pledges (or as you call it “lied”) but not Trump. You are certainly not the only person to espouse it, and I don’t mean to pick on you. But I think the truth matters above nearly everything else. I care far less about personal opinions than I do about getting the facts. We can’t have meaningful discussions if we don’t even know what the facts are.
Okay, I can agree with your point if you want to describe it that way. But then, both the other candidates who withdrew their promises, also did so before it was “time to pony up.” That puts them all in the same boat.
This is sincerely meant. I’ve never considered the possibility of a moderate wing of a US uniparty.
What do the moderates (in a uniparty) want? Border control? Energy independence through petroleum production? Reform of the CDC and the FDA? A return to equal treatment under the law? Sound monetary policy with balanced federal budgets? And end to the promotion of BLM, anti-fa, ESG, DEI and legal and corporations’ support for transsexuality for teenagers (against the parents’ wishes)? Better schooling in urban areas? And end to abortion on demand? Depoliticizing of banks? Depoliticizing of the NSA?
Do they support nationalism as opposed to globalism? Would the uniparty ever give up on globalism?
I really don’t know what a moderate wing of a uniparty would stand for. A conservative president would have to actively fight to undo all of these things. Would any faction of the uniparty ever want all this? Or even any significant portion of this?
I was just thinking about that comment today. What exactly helps the republican or conservative cause by calling a journalist “nasty?” A lot of Trump supporters and press haters will find great cathartic joy in Trump calling some journalist a name to her face on live TV. But so what? Is that going to win over some fence-sitter with his name-calling? And if so, is that the kind of person we want in the party, someone who is impressed with name-calling?
A “real man” does not get rattled by an aggressive journalist and have to resort to name-calling. That’s what little kids do. To be honest, I did not watch the debate, but I heard a small clip between Trump and Kaitlan Collins. I have no idea if she was really being “nasty,” which we normally associate with being rude or scornfully dismissive of someone, or if she was being the typical left wing journalist, uninformed and asking stupid or misleading questions. Even so, if you really have to call someone out on being nasty, you don’t say “you are a nasty person” to a someone you don’t know personally (unless you actually know this for a fact somehow). You say “you are acting nasty toward me” or “you are treating me nasty.” That is the proper response in normal society. The way Trump said it completely assails the core character of the person with no room for forgiveness, no different than saying “you are an a$$hole!”
I don’t see Trump gaining any net gain of supporters for this specific comment. If anything, he turns off more people, especially women.
Oh I read that to mean GOPe – sliding down the slope, only slower.
The U.S. population increased by about 9 million people between 2016 and 2020. To be more specific, the people who were eligible to vote (over 18 years old, not a felon, legal citizen) increased by 8,315,261 from 2016 to 2020.
If you’ll look at the chart, we actually have had a few election cycles when the increase in the number of eligible voters was around 10 million over the four-year period. I always laugh when people say “but so-and-so got the most votes in history!” (It’s not just Trump in 2020. These exclamations happen in every election cycle). They seem to be unaware that the united States gains a few million people every year.
I don’t understand this comment. Perhaps you could give a few more details.
I don’t know why you’re referring to a “real man”. Regardless, Trump wasn’t rattled in that exchange. She was not aggressive, she was antagonistic, combative, and yes nasty. If we had a normal society all of it would have been so different – including not having to be in a position of dealing with a hack propaganda press or weaponized institutions. However, since he knows he was dealing with a hack propaganda press, he got antagonistic and nasty right back. Sure that’s what kids do. That’s also what adults do, after a certain point. We’re long past that point.
Steven I can’t tell anymore if you really believe what you’re writing or if you’re just grasping at anything to rationalize your dislike. Either way I can’t take you seriously playing semantic games like that. As if some passive voice formulation would have been a-ok with you; as if Trump is actually completely assailing Kaitlan Collins’ core character with no room for forgiveness; as if “you’re nasty” is no different than saying “you’re an a$$hole!” Of course it’s different – one you have to redact and the other you can say in any company.
Steven, people (including women), can also be turned off by Kaitlan Collins actually being nasty. They can be more turned off by that than by Trump calling her nasty. It happens.
Anyway, whoever said that specific comment was going to net him any voters? I know there is some segment of voters who vote based on emotional reactions and personality. Those people already don’t like Trump. I doubt this specific exchange, after everything that has happened since 2014, is going to have any particular effect.
I believe everything that I write. Which dislike are you referring to?
What if I said you are a nasty person? Even better, what if I said it to a national audience? The only difference is in the severity of insult.
Your dislike for Trump.
That may be true for some, but polls show that women are turned off by Trump’s behavior and remarks much more than men are.
I thought Trump’s most potent rebuke, stronger even that the “nasty” remark, was when she was talking over him and he waved her off at waist level with his left hand without looking at her. Potent, and totally deserved. And iirc this was after the “nasty” remark.