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
I don’t like him personally but I voted for Trump. I mostly liked what he did as president despite some gaping failures. I will vote for him again if he is the nominee. I don’t have a need to be in love with or worship the people I vote for. That’s is mostly a democrat thing, but it has somewhat migrated into the republican party with the ascension of Trump.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but why would you call me a nasty person? I know why Trump called Kaitlin Collins a nasty person. It was meant to be severe; I think it was deserved.
After everything we’ve seen, it amazes me that the severity of a deserved insult is what you’re going on about. As if that is so important and all the rest is subordinate. I often hear – stop whining about unfairness! Ok fine with me, time to do something about it. One thing all conservatives should do is disregard the norms and proprieties because it’s only ever used as a weapon by the other side, embraced as precious when it suits them and disregarded when that suits them. Calling Kaitlan Collins nasty is small beer in the scheme of things, and it’s only a fraction of what’s deserved.
I’m curious to watch the Townhall event. It sounds like he shined (shone?).
Just to see how you’d react. It’s only hypothetical.
I only talked about it as an aside after you brought it up. I was thinking about it today because it is a disparagement Trump uses often. I haven’t seen the Townhall.
No one is asking you to be in love with him! What you’re doing here, though, is very far the other way. You’re harping on him for saying “you’re nasty” instead of “you’re being nasty to me”.
And I would harp on any adult that goes around calling people nasty.
And well you should. Keep on keeping on, Steven.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
No, the only difference is in the quantitative effect effect of the insult.
“Love”? “Worship”? “Ascension”? I think you’re reading far much more into the motivations of those who still really like Trump than is really there.
And was shunned. Trump started off politely and complimentarily.
I liked the fact that Trump even showed up. It looked to me like the audience really, really liked Trump, though they were forced to ask deliberately (linguistically skewed) anti-Trump questions (and while watching it, I came to think the questions were not sourced from the audience at all, but rather assigned). And this was in contrast to Kaitlyn’s perpetual grimace, her mouth pinched in a multi-contorted near sneer.
She kept interrupting Trump, too often after only he’s spoken a few words, talking over him, and literally engaging in protracted arguments with him. And then, like an algorithmic twitter warning, she frequently capped Trump’s remarks with a pro-forma correction, such as “The election was not rigged” or “You only built 52 miles of the wall”. This last example was despite Trump explaining that he built hundreds of miles of wall often replacing what was often only the fallen rusted or rotten remains of a fence or wall (and I’ve read, a single strand of barbed wire), but the narrative builders insisted that he couldn’t have technically built “new” barrier wall where apparently some map officially shows a fence already exists. Strictly deceptive parsing: lying.
And all the while Trump seemed to glare at the audience when he answered (after thanking them with a weak smile for their questions), but it was clear that this was a not just a hostile interview, it was in total a hostile argument conducted by the so-called hosting moderator.
At one point Trump actually got the better of her, when she said (I don’t remember, but it was something like “many republicans say you did this or that”) and Trump turned toward her and asked “Who?” She was silent for two seconds and then repeated the accusation without adding or changing a word, and then repeated the same accusation several more times, without ever answering the question “Who? said that?” Obviously she didn’t know, and it showed me that she didn’t care to know the facts, but was just parroting pre-scripted and prepackaged criticisms.
She also insisted on a yes or no answer to whether Trump wants the Ukraine to “win” the war, and Trump repeatedly said that both sides have weaknesses, that he could end the fighting immediately, and that he was concerned about stopping the the death and destruction. Nonetheless, she insisted Trump advocate a black and white win for one side or the other, despite the fact of what such a “win” looks like and now looks unlikely.
So this is a perfect example of the crap that Trump has to take every day from those who aren’t interested in what he wants or is saying, but only in smearing him.
This townhall attempted to put the hang in harangue.
Sundance post today:
DeSantis Quietly Signs New Law Sealing All of His Travel Records From Public, the Law Applies Retroactively
Since we’re talking about the Trump townhall, this from CTH:
Full Replay, CNN Broadcasts Trump Townhall, The Culmination of Their Seven-Year Effort to Destroy President Trump, CNN Leaves in Tears
“CNN cried mercy and cut the Townhall short by 20 minutes, it was scheduled for 90 – they conceded defeat at 70 minutes and ended the broadcast.”
I think Ron only gets these boutique legislation slight of hand with the full on support of the maga-less Republican Machine .
The problem is that regardless of reality the appearance makes Sundance’s conclusions reasonable.
It bothers me that those in the leadership positions, already bought and paid for, never expressly state why Trump is not their candidate. Am I missing where they tell us that?
It’s disturbing to read this. I get the sense sometimes that DeSantis trades on his cleverness. This move supports that impression. Why else would he make a preemptive move like that? It looks like he is trying to maintain some fog around his base of support, which I suspect consists of the never Trumpers.
In many ways, that’s the result of the screwy political system we have. We are not organized to be productive with stated goals and plans to get there. So it is a free-for-all system that can be gamed. Victory goes to the best gamer.
I don’t hold it against him. However, since Trump represents the Republicans’ wish list, DeSantis’s run is definitely personal. In other words, he doesn’t need to run so that we will get what we want as Republicans. He is running to unseat Trump. He thinks he can lead better, and perhaps he can in terms of attracting money to the party and talent to the executive office.
It’s very interesting.
I think that falls under the “tried to destroy our democracy” charge but they can’t go into too much detail because it’s not there.
I wouldn’t take that article too seriously until you can find out some details. The anonymous author doesn’t even give you the wording of the bill nor a link to what it actually says. And the article is filled with tons of over-the-top hyperbole rather than facts.
Well, who put spies in the Trump White House operating under the premise that they, not Trump, were charged with formulating US foreign policy? Of course, this was after they made certain Trump would not have his original choice for national security advisor. When did the “tried to destroy our democracy” charge come forth, before Jan 6?
About that time, I think it developed over time after Jan 6th. But fostering a healthy democracy by privately formulating foreign policy is a just and lofty goal.
Thanks for posting this, Flicker, I don’t know how I missed it on CTH. As with us all, Trump is sometimes inexact in his expression. He also absolutely nails it on other times. He broke down a bit on the document question. But he also needed to be very careful with his answers as there is ongoing criminal litigation concerning this very topic. Also, I am confused about this discussion of a national ban on abortion. I thought the entire victory in the Dobbs decision was to move the abortion debate back to the individual States, where it belongs. The bottom line is Trump is still sharp as a tack. At 77 years old, he is very impressive.
Here is the bill: https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1616/billtext/er/pdf.
The non-disclosure provisions are couched as security measures, but it includes information not related to official business and the non-disclosure includes after the fact. I think everyone understands cloaking movements in advance, but afterward?
The “anonymous author” is Kimberly Leonard writing for Business Insider.
Thanks! I am surprised to find that Sundance is a woman.
Anyhow, the bill is about providing transportation security measures , as you say, and it covers not only the governor and his family, but all persons invited by high State officials in Florida. The part about “non disclosure” pertains to not disclosing the security measures taken by the police or law enforcement agencies lest the bad guys find out and the protected persons become endangered. Now how Sundance can claim that this bill will erase the records of where the governor travels or who he meets with is beyond me. It says nothing about that in the bill. This sounds like a big stretch to me.
You may want to reread the bill. Security measures are absolutely legit, but if you read carefully the bill does not exempt only security measures from the Florida FOIA law. The focus of the CTH post was cutting off information about who the governor meets with, when and where for non-state business even after the meetings occur. And that was the portion of the bill I focused on.
I re-read it and I don’t see anything that would potentially hide the records of whom the governor or other Florida officials meet with or where they travel. It seems to only cite law enforcement agencies when it comes to hiding information on travel security issues. I would not presume that law enforcement agencies are the branch of government that keeps the official calendar and itinerary records of the governor or other state official’s, though I could be wrong. Maybe you could expound on the wording of the bill if I missed something.
Ok, you are going to make me do this: The governor’s calendar subject to Florida FOIA is his official duties as governor. Nothing in his presidential campaign activities is required to be on his official calendar. Media was able to track DeSantis’ re-election activities (prior to this law change) by tracking his travel records with his security detail. They may have shielded future movements based on security needs, but they disclosed trips after the fact. The key phrases in the new law relate to “transportation”, “personal” (meaning not governmental, i.e. not the governor’s day job), and “after” . Once the record is exempt the agency never has to disclose even after the fact. So the question is — why isn’t any information about personal transportation of the governor to any location ever available after it occurs? That is what the law says.
Thank you for the explanation. At the risk of sounding pesky, then how is that any different than say, Trump, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Larry Elder, or Asa Hutchinson, who are all private citizens and are not subject to any FOIA requests concerning their travel movements or meetings?
The difference is that he is a sitting governor. And a legislature has modified the law to facilitate him fundraising in private when their existing rule made that information public. Yes, it puts him on a level playing field with the private citizen candidates (assuming the state and the campaign are rigorous in correctly recording and reimbursing the state for transportation expenses, which activity if handled by the same agency providing security and transportation to the governor is now not FOIAble). My point is not to criticize the law, merely to highlight how it lends some credence to suspicions by Sundance that the GOPe is doing everything to grease the DeSantis campaign.
Daniel McCarthy, writing for the New York Sun, has an interesting article on the DeSantis vs Trump contest. It’s behind a paywall, but here are a couple of interesting takes:
and
I assume all polls are propaganda. It also way to early to look at polling. The campaigning has not really started yet.
What is that saying, “Rs fall in love and Ds fall in line” ? Yet, Romney and McCain happened. They both feel like hires by the GOPe.