https://thespectator.com/politics/only-way-ron-desantis-prevails-2024/ I wonder if Ron DeSantis’s favorite mot these days is from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” Maybe so. But let’s face, the reports are many and deafening. They are also damaging. Consider, to take one recent example, the report, conveyed by Semafor, on the DeSantis Meme Team that works under the rubric of […]
https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/01/republicans-anti-desantis-curriculum-attacks-are-a-gift-to-the-left/
Several GOP congressmen furthered Democrats’ lie that Florida’s curriculum teaches slavery was beneficial to blacks.
It’s bad enough when Democrats and their legacy media allies intentionally distort facts to smear conservatives. It’s inexplicable when Republicans help them do it.
Last week, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott — a contender for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination — accepted Democrats’ phony premise that there’s something wrong with Florida’s slavery curriculum. Vice President Kamala Harris and regime-approved media had been fomenting the complete lie that the Sunshine State’s new African American history curriculum teaches students that slavery was beneficial to black Americans.
As The Federalist’s Eddie Scarry and others have pointed out, these claims are total nonsense. The standards are clear in teaching that, despite their enslavement, blacks developed skills that “in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit” — not that slavery was beneficial to them. It’s worth mentioning that the College Board’s African American studies course includes similar teachings.
But these facts didn’t stop Republicans like Scott from advancing Harris’ false narrative about the subject. When asked about it late last week, Scott embraced the lie and used it to attack fellow 2024 primary contender Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“[T]here is no silver lining in freedom — in slavery. The truth is that anything you can learn, any benefits that people suggest you had during slavery, you would have had as a free person,” Scott said. “[Slavery] was just devastating. So, I would hope that every person in our country, and certainly running for president would appreciate that. Listen, people have bad days, sometimes they regret what they say, and we should ask them again to clarify their positions.”
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/31/exclusive-poll-shows-majority-of-americans-support-voter-id-limited-mail-in-voting/
New polling provided exclusively to The Federalist shows a vast majority of U.S. voters support election integrity initiatives such as voter ID requirements and limitations on the use of mail-in voting.
Conducted by the Honest Elections Project (HEP) from July 13-16, the survey reveals widespread support among the American electorate for common-sense election integrity policies. According to the poll, 88 percent of Americans support laws mandating voters show a form of ID in order to cast their ballot, including the vast majority of black (82 percent) and Hispanic voters (83 percent). Only 9 percent of those polled opposed ID requirements.
The survey’s findings paint a vastly different picture than the one crafted by legacy media and Democrat politicians, who for years have maliciously smeared voter ID laws as Republican-sponsored tools designed to “suppress” the votes of racial minorities. Two years ago, for example, Democrats and their propaganda press allies used this tactic to smear Georgia’s passage of an election integrity law that contained a provision mandating voter ID for absentee voting. President Joe Biden went so far as to label the bill “Jim Crow on steroids.”
Not only did Georgia experience record early voter turnout ahead of its Nov. 8 general election and Dec. 6 Senate runoff, but a poll conducted after the 2022 midterms revealed zero percent of black Georgia voters said they had a “poor” experience voting in the elections.
The HEP survey also found overwhelming opposition to noncitizens and minors voting in U.S. elections. In recent years, Democrat-controlled cities such as Washington, D.C., have passed measures permitting foreign nationals to vote in their respective municipal elections. Meanwhile, blue localities in states such as Maryland and California have passed measures allowing kids as young as 16 to vote in local elections.
According to HEP’s polling data, 89 percent of voters “think that American elections should only be for American citizens, including 82% of Democrats, 80% of Black voters, and 78% of Hispanic voters.” The survey also found 72 percent of voters oppose dropping the voting age to 16.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/25/the-times-latest-desantis-smear-job-is-laughably-dishonest/
Although almost nothing is certain in life, there are two things we can be sure of when it comes to The New York Times: their “journalists” are not only incredibly dishonest, but are also horrible at math.
Case in point, their most recent pile of nonsense—unleashed by their so-called “investigative team,” titled “The Steep Cost of Ron DeSantis’s Vaccine Turnabout.”
This 3,000-plus word smear piece dressed up as journalism is nothing more than a heap of lies, omissions and easily disproven Covid theories—all in a pathetic attempt to discredit Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s strong record on Covid—in which he protected the most vulnerable, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, allowed businesses to thrive, kept children in school and preserved the liberties and freedoms of Floridians.
Virtually every claim the Times makes about DeSantis, is either not backed by any legitimate science, data, or is a complete fabrication and distortion of the governor’s record.
Then again, no one should be surprised that one of the three “journalists” responsible for this hogwash is none other than Sharon LaFraniere, whom the Times boasts in her bio, received a “Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump’s connections with Russia.” In other words, she received an award for something that not only never occurred—but that this sad leftist propagandist outlet is still peddling and celebrating.
Let’s dive right into the Times lunacy.
The piece starts out hilariously enough by claiming that in September 2020, Dr. Deborah Birx who was part of the White House coronavirus task force, received what was described as an alarming call from DeSantis’s then Florida surgeon general, Dr. Scott Rivkees. What was so alarming? DeSantis no longer supported what the Times considered “preventive Covid measures,” including limiting indoor dining.
In other words, given that thousands of restaurants in lockdown states had either closed permanently during Covid, or were forced to adopt ridiculous and unscientific measures that only allowed them to operate at roughly twenty-five percent capacity, DeSantis wanted the businesses in his state to actually be able earn a profit. The governor did not want restaurants in Florida to have to close through no fault of their own; he did not want employees to be laid off and he wanted customers to be free to choose if they thought eating out was worth the risk. Oh the horror.
The Times also conveniently ignored that DeSantis only wanted to do away with so-called mitigation measures once the data clearly showed who was most adversely affected by the virus, and once it became obvious that states with extreme lockdowns fared no better than places that remained open.
What a travesty.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-wild-2024-race/
Current polls, pundits, and politicos insist that the 2024 race is a sure rematch between former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden.
It may well turn out that way.
But in past election cycles, summer polls 15 months before the general election usually did not mean much.
In December 2003, the CBS poll headline blared, “Dean pulls away in Dem race.” Howard Dean would eventually be clobbered by nominee John Kerry.
In the Gallup Poll of late June 2007, Hillary Clinton still continued to enjoy her wide lead in the Democratic primary over eventual nominee and elected president Barack Obama.
On the Republican side, Gallup noted of its summer 2007 polls that, “There has been little serious threat to the frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani” — who bombed out early in the race.
About this time in 2015, Jeb Bush was leading Trump in the Republican primary. Or as CNN characterized their summer poll, “He (Bush) holds a significant lead over the second-place candidate Trump.”
By January 2016, the favorite, can-do Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was leading all candidates by a substantial margin as they headed for the Iowa caucuses.
There are lots of reasons to believe that 2024 may prove to be the most volatile race in recent memory.
Not since 1912 — when third-party ex-president Theodore Roosevelt challenged incumbent President William Howard Taft in a three-way race with Woodrow Wilson — have two presidents run against each other.
Both, remember, lost that year to the far less experienced Wilson.
Second, Trump is currently the target of at least four state and federal prosecutors.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/20/meet-the-self-interested-trio-behind-the-anti-desantis-attacks/
Before you buy the down-with-DeSantis spin, pay attention to who is peddling it.
You can tell who’s feared in politics by who gets attacked. Many political observers believe nominating Ron DeSantis is the GOP’s most likely path to beating Joe Biden and getting an effective conservative president into office. At the same time, DeSantis faces a three-pronged axis working to convince Republican voters that his nascent presidential campaign can’t possibly succeed.
The first prong consists of legacy media. Naturally, they want nothing to do with a competent, conservative candidate. The second is the Trump campaign; DeSantis is the man Trump must beat to win the GOP nomination. The third is establishment Republicans, who are so caught up in the idea of getting one of their own back in power that they forget they will have to choose between Trump and DeSantis.
Each of these distracts both from the fact that the GOP election cycle will ultimately come down to Trump and DeSantis and from the reality that it’s time for a battle of political heavyweights in the Republican ring.
The Media Need Trump As Their Scapegoat
The corporate media oppose DeSantis for two reasons. First, he’s a conservative who defies their narrative on essentially everything: masks, lockdowns, indoctrinating children with LGBT propaganda, the need for fiscal restraint, the proper role of government, the merits of our founding, the goodness of America, and so on.
Second, they suspect he can win.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ron-desantis-military-plan-china-defense-culture-wars-pentagon-b3eb2211?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
Ron DeSantis is gradually laying out his presidential agenda, and on Tuesday he unveiled a plan to build a “Mission First” U.S. military. The Florida Governor has several worthy ideas to restore American confidence in the armed forces, though fighting the culture wars isn’t a substitute for preventing an actual war.
“We need a military that is focused on being lethal, being ready and being capable,” Gov. DeSantis said in South Carolina. The U.S. military is suffering from institutional drift, as senior officers rush to associate themselves with progressive causes. One example: Space Force Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt in a June speech unleashed a political broadside against elected state legislatures for considering what she styled as “anti-LGBTQ+” measures.
One good priority is reviving American military education. Gov. DeSantis is right that the service academies ought to be “narrowly focused” on disciplines such as engineering or military history and leadership. Civilian academics have taken over most military educational institutions such as war colleges, and the instruction is often, as Gov. DeSantis says, “substandard.”
The Governor, a Navy veteran, also says he would review the performance of every four-star flag officer and remove those who aren’t focused on lethality. There is reason to wonder if the services are producing the war fighting talent the country needs by picking leaders on the merits. More aggressive civilian oversight would help.
Case in point: In 2021 a Navy admiral suggested the service should bring back photos as part of promotion boards to achieve more diversity. Gov. DeSantis said he’d ban “race and gender quotas in military recruiting and promotions.”
https://issuesinsights.com/2023/07/19/trump-biden-still-hold-big-leads-but-can-they-last-ii-tipp-poll/
Both of the leading candidates for president in 2024 have come under intense scrutiny and political pressure in recent weeks, but it hasn’t dimmed their prospects much. Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump maintain solid leads against their main party rivals, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows. The big question is, can it last?
In the national online poll of 616 Democrats, taken July 5-7 and having a +/-4 percentage point margin of error, we once again asked the party faithful the following question: “If the Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support for the nomination?”
As before, Biden emerged substantially ahead of the field of challengers, but that came before a rough week of gaffes, stumbles, confusion and embarrassing behavior during his European trip. Some 36% of those responding said they would support Biden in the primary, even after the Hunter Biden bribery scandals. Once again, none of the 16 likely challengers to Biden received more than a single-digit poll reading.
Biden is followed in descending order by former First Lady Michelle Obama (9%), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (8%), Vice President Kamala Harris (7%), Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (5%), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and environmentalist lawyer and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (both at 4%), Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (3%), and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2%).
A long list of others, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, won 1% or less of the tally.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/16/not-my-concern-will-help-narrow-gop-field/
Who won the Republican blow-out interview lalapalooza with Tucker Carlson in Iowa Friday night? Besides Tucker himself—who was on the Q side of this extended Q & A—the participants were South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, former Vice President Mike Pence, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Let me say straight off that the biggest beneficiary was probably Tucker himself. He is a master interviewer, outgoing and friendly in manner, informed about the issues, unrelenting in his questioning. Some of his hosts at the Family Leadership Summit, which with Blaze Media sponsored the event, were so impressed with his performance that they suggested to the audience that Tucker himself should run for president. It’s an idea that has been in circulation for a while and it got a notable “trending” uptick as the evening unfolded. Tucker himself has dismissed the idea in no uncertain terms, but it is worth noting how widespread his support is among the politically mature.
But even though Tucker emerged as one of the stars of the evening, the show was not about him but about that clutch of GOP hopefuls. Who among that gang of six won?
It’s probably easier to start with the loser, chief among whom was Mike Pence, who might just as well have used the occasion to perform an act of self-immolation. The key moment came in an exchange about foreign policy, in particular U.S. policy with respect to the war in Ukraine. Pence said he was distressed that we had yet to send Ukraine the promised Abrams tanks or train Ukrainian pilots to fly F16s.
“You are distressed,” said Tucker, “that the Ukrainians don’t have enough American tanks. Every city in the United States has become much worse in the last three years. . . .and yet your concern is that the Ukrainians . . . don’t have enough tanks? Where’s the concern in the United States in that?”
“Well, that’s not my concern. Tucker, I’ve heard that routine from you before, but that’s not my concern.”
“Not my concern.”
Bang. “Not my concern.”
The internet lit up over that one, with some people saying that Pence had just committed suicide and others wondering what he was saying. To what did “that’s not my concern” apply?
Mollie Hemingway was probably correct that Pence was flummoxed and that it is “fair to say he intended to say something about how we can fight forever wars with unclear ties to national interest at the same time we begin to fight American decline.” Unfortunately for Pence, as Hemingway went on to observe, “many GOP voters would say he’s wrong on that as well.”
Indeed, conservative commentary seemed to veer from, at the generous end of the spectrum, unhappy ah-ha comments like this: “Oh see what Pence MEANT to say is that America can both fight/fund endless wars abroad that have only a tenuous connection to the national interest, and ALSO accomplish a series of empty platitudes from the GOP platform circa 2012. I get it now.” At the further end of that spectrum were clipped dismissals like the one contained in unfamily-friendly memes like this.
There was, at the margins, a little backsliding and floundering, but I think the consensus was that Pence did himself significant damage. The “not my concern” slip might be corrected, explained away, as was Obama’s “57 states” comment. But that suffocating sense that the former Vice President is a priggish, platitude-emitting machine will be hard to overcome.
What else happened? Well, Tim Scott strutted on stage with a grinning hallelujah wave but said . . . not much. Nikki Haley was much better than I thought she would be but, at the end of the day, agreed that Joe Biden 1) had actually got 81 million votes (he didn’t) and 2) even though there were “irregularities” in the 2020 election, Biden was legitimately elected.
In other words, she is part of the problem.
One of the best responses was from Vivek Ramaswamy, the young ferociously articulate candidate who, I think, will not be president this time, but who truly gets it. Asked about the origin of January 6, 2021, the little contretemps at the Capitol in 2021, he said, “Well it was probably because of censorship.”
Tell people they cannot speak, he said, and they will scream. Tell them they cannot scream, and they will start taking things apart.
There you have it. I love Vivek. Maybe he will be president someday. Not this time, I think, but maybe soon (how about a Trump Vivek ticket? I am just saying).
https://www.city-journal.org/article/gop-voters-preference-for-last-times-loser
Perhaps the biggest weakness of Republican presidential voters is their attachment to last time’s loser. Time and again, Republicans have nominated the candidate they rejected in the primaries the last time around, only to have general-election voters resoundingly reject that candidate this time around.
Over the past 30 years, Republicans have nominated the runner-up during the previous Republican primary (when not featuring a GOP incumbent) three times. Of these, Bob Dole won 30 percent of the electoral vote in 1996 (losing by 220 electoral votes), John McCain won 32 percent in 2008 (losing by 192), and Mitt Romney won 38 percent in 2012 (losing by 126). Only once during this stretch have the Democrats nominated last time’s loser: Hillary Clinton, who won 42 percent of the electoral vote in 2016 (losing by 77).
Meantime, the two parties have combined to nominate four candidates over that span who weren’t last time’s loser and hadn’t previously been elected as president or vice president. Among such “new blood” candidates, George W. Bush won 50.4 percent of the electoral vote in 2000, John Kerry won 47 percent in 2004, Barack Obama won 68 percent in 2008, and Donald Trump won 57 percent in 2016.
In sum, new blood candidates have three wins to one loss over the past three decades (winning an average of 56 percent of the electoral vote), while last time’s losers have zero wins and four losses (winning an average of 36 percent).
When they nominate last time’s loser, however, at least Democrats don’t generally pick someone who has already been rejected by the general electorate. Republicans seem to believe that swing voters think like Republicans do when seeing a candidate they rejected last time: Oh, I didn’t vote for him (or her) before, but I’m familiar with him (or her), so I’ll do it this time. But the way actual swing voters think is more like this: I didn’t vote for him last time, and there’s no way I’ll vote for him based on his resume since then.
If Donald Trump had vanished from the scene on November 3, 2020, and swing voters’ only memory of him was the first 46 months of his presidency, they might seriously contemplate giving him another shot.
