Haley and DeSantis Spend Hours Attacking Each Other

Last night was the fifth Republican presidential candidates' debate, and the last one before people cast actual ballots. Hopefully you did not watch it, as it was a near-total waste of time, while also having the added bonus of being extremely depressing.

Here, such as it is, are the ten things that stood out to us:

1. Too Long: With the higher threshold for qualifying, as well as the usual absence of Donald Trump, there were only two people on stage—Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Nikki Haley. We are not persuaded there is ever a situation where a 2-hour debate is called for; that's longer than most movies, and demands more of an attention span than most Americans have. But certainly 2 hours is too much when you only have two candidates. Because of the vast amount of time available, the candidates were given 90 seconds to answer the questions put to them, which ended up meaning that they had 90 seconds to prattle and to go off on whatever tangent would allow them to deliver one of their pre-scripted talking points.
   
   
2. Answer the Damn Question: As the above implies, the two candidates rarely answered the actual questions that were put before them. When Haley was asked how, in view of her promise to kill the federal gas tax (which would mean a loss of $40 billion in revenue), she would pay for maintenance on roads and freeways, she ended up in a rant about the state of the Florida economy. When DeSantis was asked if his support for a flat tax would mean that poorer people end up paying more in taxes while rich people end up paying less, he ended up in a rant about the FBI. Debate host CNN did a smart thing, where they put the question on screen as the person answered, so you could see how far afield they were going from the actual query. But why couldn't the moderators follow up with: "You didn't answer the question. Here it is again."? That happened just one time, by our count.
   
   
3. Mediocre Moderators: Speaking of the moderators, Dana Bash and Jake Tapper were a little better than what we've seen in the past four debates, but not by much. They, like their predecessors, often struggled to maintain order, with the result that there were many occasions when the two candidates were shouting over each other. On top of that, some of the questions were good, but some were very, very poor. For example, the moderators asked DeSantis if he believes Haley is sufficiently pro-life, and Haley if she believes that DeSantis is sufficiently pro-life. What value do such questions have? There is NO WAY either of them is going to say: "Yes, my opponent is very strongly pro-life; I really admire them for that." And so, the question might just as well be: Please spend 90 seconds attacking your opponent on the issue of abortion. What does that have to do with "debating" or "journalism" or anything other than egging the candidates on?
   
   
4. Ugh, the Audience: We've said it before, and we will say it again, but the audience adds an unwelcome dimension to the debate. And it was particularly bad last night, as the venue was pretty intimate, and the crowd was right up close to the stage. We also suspect that CNN specifically recruited a bunch of Haley partisans and a bunch of DeSantis partisans, because nearly every time either candidate spoke, they got a big cheer. For our part, we don't need to hear hundreds of people cheering when, for example, DeSantis promises to deport 10 million people. And if they MUST have a cheering audience, then we would also like to see them implement a laugh track, ideally with the button controlled by us.
   
   
5. Iowa, What's Iowa?: Ostensibly, the point of the debate was to help Iowans make their decision before caucusing on Monday. However, only a tiny portion of the two hours was spent on issues that would specifically be of concern to Iowans (like, say, ethanol subsidies). Most of the mentions of Iowa were just token references, like DeSantis noting that he is friends with Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) or Haley talking about going to a cattle farm. If we were Iowans, we would have found these mentions to be a little patronizing.
   
   
6. Hissy Fit: As it turns out, DeSantis hates to be thought of as a failure almost as much as Donald Trump does. And so, the one really off-script moment for him came when Haley pointed out that his campaign has blown through $150 million and has high-single-digit polling to show for it, along with all sorts of dissension within the campaign. She suggested, not unreasonably, that if someone can't run a campaign, they probably aren't suited to running a country. DeSantis got very agitated and almost looked like he was about to cry. You can see the exchange here, if you wish.
   
   
7. DeSantis Talking Point #1: When each candidate gets nearly an hour's worth of speaking time, they have plenty of opportunity to hit upon whatever their key talking point for the night is. And in DeSantis' case, it was that Haley is a hypocrite with a lousy track record. He found dozens of different ways to demean her time as governor and as U.N. ambassador.
   
   
8. Haley Talking Point #1: Meanwhile, Haley's #1 talking point was that DeSantis is a liar. At the start of the evening, she made a joke about how if you turn the debate into a drinking game, and you take a drink every time DeSantis lies, you'll quickly end up "overserved." Why she couldn't just say "drunk," we don't know. In any event, she followed that by announcing the launch of the website www.desantislies.com, where you can get the Haley campaign's totally unbiased presentation on how truthful DeSantis is. She then mentioned the site, over and over, throughout the evening—at least 15 times.
   
   Truth be told, we don't know why a website is needed, since DeSantis is such a terrible liar. To take but one example, he was asked about his war against Disney, which he said was necessary because Disney is "trans-ing" kids. Hmmmm, that word does not appear in our dictionary. In any event, he said that while he was fighting Disney, Haley was welcoming the company to South Carolina. But, of course, his war against Disney commenced something like 5 years AFTER she was governor. You don't even need Google's help to be able to figure out that he was lying.
   
   
9. Morning in America?: We've noted many times, including this week, that presidential candidates used to try to be positive, at least part of the time. But positivity was in short supply last night, unless you count "I'm going to punish the people who (allegedly) hurt you, angry Republican voters" as a positive message. It is instructive, we think, that the most important thing that the two candidates wanted to leave you with was not something affirmative about what they might do as president, or even something negative about the guy they are chasing in the polls, but instead something negative about the other person on stage. If the most important thing Haley has to say is "Ron DeSantis is a liar," then why vote for Haley? If the most important thing DeSantis has to say is "Nikki Haley is incompetent," then why vote for DeSantis? This is a clear manifestation of Trumpian politics: attack the boogeymen, attack your opponents, attack everything else in sight. Although even he offered/offers a sliver of hopefulness, with the "Make America Great Again" bit. DeSantis and Haley can't even come up with a sliver.
   
   
10. Targeting Trump: Speaking of Trump, he came up last night, and both candidates were willing to poke him, more often than in previous debates. However, there were some very clear rules of engagement that both DeSantis and Haley were following. Both candidates were willing to say that they like Trump's ideas, but that the U.S. needs someone who can actually execute on more of them. On the other hand, they absolutely were not willing to attack Trump the person, even when specifically asked if he has the character to be president. Each of the two people on stage also came equipped with a passive-aggressive Trump-related sleight of hand. In Haley's case, nearly anytime she was asked about Trump's record, she said that she's not in a position to comment, and that this is why she wished the former president had showed up for the debate. In DeSantis' case, he said he was "concerned" about the GOP nominating a candidate who might end up in legal trouble because they might have to go before an "ultra-liberal, all-Democrat D.C. jury." That's a very tidy way of saying Trump might end up a convicted felon, while placing the blame for that on someone other than Trump himself.

If you would like a winner, well, the winner is... nobody. Both candidates were obnoxious, the moderators did a pretty lousy job, and the people of Iowa got very little assistance in helping to cast their ballots. Everyone is now dumber for having watched it. We award Haley and DeSantis no points, and may God have mercy on their souls. (Z)

Chris Christie Capitulates

Shortly before last night's debate, another "presidential candidate" bit the dust, as Chris Christie announced that he is dropping out of the race.

In his farewell press conference, Christie did not endorse a preferred presidential candidate. He did manage to de-endorse (if that's a word) each of the top three contenders for the GOP nomination. In the case of Donald Trump, Christie's de-endorsement was very intentional. The former New Jersey governor said:

Donald Trump wants you to be angry every day because he's angry. He wants you to be angry so that you'll relate to his anger and then to vote for him. Please understand this. I have known him well for 22 years—more than anybody else in this race has known him. And I can promise you this. If you put him back behind the desk in the Oval Office and the choice comes and the decision is needed to be made as to whether he puts himself first or he puts you first, how much more evidence do you need that he will pick himself?

And if that is what we have there, then people are gonna remain angry, remain divided, and become even more exhausted than they are today. The country that I think we should choose is the country that recognizes that our differences have always been our strength, not a weakness, not something to divide us and anger us, but our differences have been our strength. We come from different countries at different times to different places with different skills, with different religions.

There's nothing there that we would disagree with, though it might be nice to see Christie acknowledge that he played a big role in enabling Trump for 5 years before changing his tune.

As to Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, Christie's de-endorsement was inadvertent... probably. While he was waiting to go on stage to make his big announcement, Christie was talking with an advisor and his mic was hot. So, everyone heard him say that: (1) "[Haley]'s gonna get smoked and you and I both know it. She's not up to this," and (2) that when DeSantis called Christie on the phone to talk about the campaign, DeSantis was "petrified." Trump got much mileage out of this at his Fox town hall last night, and the two bits will presumably become regular parts of his repertoire. Ostensibly, Christie's comments were not meant to be overheard, but he's pretty smart and he's also quite petty (see Bridgegate), and so we wonder how "accidental" that accident really was.

In any case, Christie's withdrawal was long overdue. He claimed to be the guy that would "speak truth" about Trump, but every time he had an opportunity to do it before a national audience (i.e., the first three presidential candidates' debates), he wilted. We suspect that he was having a tough time overriding his political instincts, and his hope that, just maybe, he might win this thing. Now that is no longer a concern, so he can fire with both barrels if that is what he wants to do. Even if Fox and OAN won't touch Christie with a 10-foot pole, there are plenty of other outlets that are thrilled to welcome Trump-hating Republicans. Just think of how often we hear from George Conway.

Meanwhile, as a tactical matter, if derailing Trump is the goal, then Christie really needed to get out of Haley's way in New Hampshire. And indeed, polling continues to suggest that much of his Granite State support will migrate to her. So, maybe she keeps it close there, or even pulls out a victory. That will be interesting, of course, and will excite much comment, but good luck when she gets to the Solid South. Even South Carolina.

Christie's departure from the GOP race leaves us with four "serious" non-Trump candidates, namely Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Haley and DeSantis. Who will be next to go? (Z)

Trump Legal News: Don't Speak

Today will be closing arguments in Donald Trump's civil fraud case in New York. And earlier this week, Trump announced that he would like to speak as part of that process. This is not the usual procedure, but it's not unheard of, either.

Unfortunately for the former president, Judge Arthur Engoron was not born yesterday, and he has a pretty good idea of what Trump was planning to say. So, Engoron agreed to the request, but with strict conditions. Trump would have been allowed to talk about the evidence, or the applicability of state law to that evidence. What Trump would not have been allowed to do is try to introduce new evidence, talk about anything remotely related to politics, engage in personal attacks against the Court and its staff, or engage in personal attacks against New York AG Letitia James. In order to make certain that these rules were observed, Engoron further decreed that both Trump and lead counsel Chris Kise would be required to sign a document laying out the stipulations. Further, the Judge said that if his terms were violated, Trump would be removed from the courtroom and would pay a fine of "not less than $50,000."

Faced with this, Trump declined Engoron's terms. Officially, per Kise, the reason is that the terms were "fraught with ambiguities." Uh, huh. In any event, the former president will be in court today, but he won't be speaking on his own behalf. That should allow them to wrap things up pretty quickly. And since Engoron has had plenty of time to think things through, and probably to draft a version of his final decision, maybe an announcement will come next week. It would be very poetic timing if this decision and the presidential immunity decision came down on the same day. (Z)

Freedom Caucus Throws Tantrum

The Freedom Caucus, as we have noted many times, is not happy with the budget deal struck by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). And yesterday, they found a way to express their pique. The House was set to debate three bills, none of which have anything to do with spending. But when it came time to adopt the rules for debate—typically a pro forma matter that features strict party-line voting—a dozen FCers rebelled and tanked the vote, which failed 203-216.

What this means is that the House is now idling in neutral while Johnson figures out what to do next. The first option is to work with the FCers and to see if they can be mollified in some way. Maybe burning a member of the Democratic Socialists at the stake, or something like that. Alternatively, Johnson can suspend the rules of the House, which would defang the FCers but would mean that the budget bills would need two-thirds support in the lower chamber. Only Johnson and his whips know if the votes are there for that. He could also go for a short-term spending bill that kicks the can down the road, but that might well face the same obstacles as the long-term spending bills.

There is, as you can imagine, much carping going on in the House GOP conference right now. For example, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), one of the FCers, said the current budget proposal is "unacceptable." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who was expelled from the FC but still acts like a member, said she is "absolutely not" happy with Johnson's work as speaker. On the other hand, non-FC Republicans are angry with their far-right colleagues. "They start with 'no' for everything, and it's now become about ego and... anger, rather than real policymaking," remarked Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC). "This is foolish," said Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY).

The same kind of backbiting and tantrum-throwing was the prelude to the fall of former speaker Kevin McCarthy. Maybe it presages the same for Johnson, maybe not. You never know with the Freedom Caucus. What is known is that the government will shut down in 8 days if Johnson doesn't manage to navigate a way through this mess. (Z)

Freedom Caucus Also Hard at Work on Future Tantrums

The far-right members of the House are multitaskers. They are absolutely capable of throwing today's tantrum while also working on tomorrow's tantrum, as they are demonstrating at this very moment.

On the same day that the FCers threw a wrench into the process of funding the government for FY 2023-24 (see above), they were also busy with two other projects. To start, they held their very first formal committee hearing into the possibility of impeaching DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The charge is... well, that will come later, because Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) & Co. haven't quite figured out what law or regulation Mayorkas has broken. But they will find something, that is for certain. Impeaching Joe Biden could be a tall order, and so impeaching a smaller fish could be the "middle ground" that pleases the base (and the Dear Leader) while still getting enough GOP votes to move forward. If it does happen, it will be the first time in nearly 150 years that a Cabinet secretary has been impeached (United States Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached in 1876, and resigned before the Senate trial could move forward).

Meanwhile, the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees staged hearings into the question of whether First Son Hunter Biden should be held in contempt of Congress. The Oversight hearing, in particular, was a circus, and only in part because Biden himself showed up to observe the proceedings. The message, in case anyone missed it, is that he's happy to show up for hearings, just not those held behind closed doors. Anyhow, both committees voted to hold Biden in contempt, with a party-line vote in each case. The matter will now go before the entire House, as soon as Mike Johnson figures out a way to un-gum the works. (Z)

Today in Organized Ratf**king

Maybe it's because the Internet makes such things possible. Or maybe it's because Donald Trump inspires a particularly intense level of hatred. Or maybe it's something else. In any case, reader J.C. in Farmington, NY brings to our attention a ratf**cking effort that operates at a scale we've never seen before.

The organization, and the site, are called PrimaryPivot. And their (very brief) mission statement:

PrimaryPivot is dedicated to protecting our democracy by defeating Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican primaries.

Through his words and actions, Donald Trump has demonstrated a disturbing disregard for the principles that underpin our democracy. He has shown a shocking lack of faith in the peaceful transfer of power and a blatant disregard for the rule of law. These actions represent a clear and present danger to the integrity of our nation and its democratic processes.

Our purpose is not to engage in partisan politics, but to safeguard the core values that have guided our country for generations.

What the website does is allow visitors—Democrats and independents—to figure out exactly what steps they need to take in order to vote in the Republican primary/caucus/convention in their state, so as to vote for some candidate other than Trump.

We pass this information along because it's interesting, and we like to write about the interesting aspects of any particular election cycle. That said, we can't imagine it will have an impact. Donald Trump's lead over his opponents is very large, and the field figures to be cleared after Super Tuesday. So, unless a heck of a lot of Southern Democrats and independents get on board with the plan, then PrimaryPivot is just pivoting at windmills. (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part III: Most Admirable Person

We did Most Deplorable Person on Tuesday, and now we move on to Most Admirable Person. We must admit, neither survey produced a list anything close to what we expected.

Once again, we are going to start with some runners-up:

America's Journalists

E.K.M. in Delaware, OH: America's remaining journalists, who do daily battle on our behalf in an unprecedented atmosphere of right-wing atrocities against truth. The writers for The Atlantic, reporters for The New York Times, columnists at The Washington Post—the list is long—and let's not forget small-market journalists, who are forced to do battle with local purveyors of hate along with, often, their own management.

Kate Cox, et al.

S.S. in Ithaca, NY: All the women in red states dealing with anti-abortion laws—especially those who lack the financial means and resources for other options, and those dealing with life-threatening situations, such as Kate Cox in Texas.

Yvon Chouinard

C.S. in Minneapolis, MN: The title belongs to Yvon Chouinard. No one—not one other leader comes close—walks the talk the way Chouinard has his entire life. Beginning in the 1960s, with his efforts to preserve rock faces by creating non-destructive climbing gear, and continuing through today, he has focused on Ma Nature. Most recently, Yvon gave his company, Patagonia, away. He created the Patagonia Purpose Trust and the Holdfast Collective, which is focused on climate change and the environment.

Shawn Fain

A.H. in Atlanta, GA: Guy led auto strikes and got workers much better benefits and conditions, not to mention raising union support to 67%

Defenders of the Book

D.E. in Lancaster, PA: I would like to nominate Kate, the Girl Scout from Hanover, VA, for creating a web site for books her local school board banned; actor LeVar Burton (Kunta Kinte, Geordi LaForge and Reading Rainbow), for his tireless efforts to push back on book banning; The Banned Book Club (and President Obama, who loves reading and who promoted it on his then Twitter account), which makes banned books available online in an app form; and all the true Americans who have stood up to "Moms For Liberty" and their fascist agenda. Of course, I got these candidates from re-reading "This Week In Freudenfreude."

Dolly Parton

A.C. in Buffalo, NY: It's hard to recall all of the reasons, but just about once a week I see some headline about something philanthropic, or some good, kind-hearted deed that she has done. She somehow manages to keep her public political leanings somewhat agnostic, although it's fairly inconceivable that on the inside she could possibly have any sympathy or respect for the MAGA movement, based on how genuine and kind a person she appears to be.

And now, the top five:

5. Jack Smith

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM: My vote for most admirable goes to Jack Smith, for tackling the most important yet difficult cases in America today. He consistently shows his persistence, professionalism, and fidelity to the rule of law.

O.B. in Santa Monica, CA: To think I was skeptical when AG Merrick Garland first appointed him.

D.C. in Carbondale, IL: His unrelenting pursuit of justice and consequences, for an unrelenting criminal sociopath who never faced either so far. Help us, Jack; you're our only hope.

4. Taylor Swift

J.D. in Greensboro, NC: I thought long and hard and she popped into my mind because she represents much of what is possible in this great country of ours. She is a phenomenal entertainer for another generation and has made loads of money doing it, largely through hard work and canny promotion. And while she has risen to the top of her profession, she seems to have avoided the ego trappings of the game. Oh sure, her love life and the fact that she writes songs about it gets attention, but I've never seen a story about her throwing public tantrums or giving her boyfriends black eyes. Plus she does politics in the right way, in my opinion: She appeals to young people to become civically engaged and to me that is a winner all around. There could come a day that she comes unglued, but I doubt it and I hope not. For now her influence reigns and hopefully it will continue to urge younger generations to embrace civic activism and democracy. And this comes from someone who would not know one of her songs if she heard it on the radio!

R.L. in Rosemead, CA: Taylor Swift. Why? All you need to do is see the impact on the faces of my 16-year-old daughter and her friends.

J.P. in Glenside, PA: Time magazine has suggested she is the most influential person of 2023. But for me, mostly because she is dating that Kansas City Chiefs tight end and between them they have got right up Fox News' nose in a big way.

3. Jimmy Carter

S.D. in Homer, AK: Of all the 8 billion humans alive today, I admire Jimmy Carter the most, for his life of public service and decency.

M.G. in Boulder, CO: For showing us, over and over, what a decent human being is and can accomplish. Defeated when he tried for a second term, he moved on with great grace.

M.S. in Poplar Bluff, MO: For the past 40 years, he has taught us how a good man should live, and he is now showing us how a good man should live out the last of his days.

2. Joe Biden

M.N. in Chicago, IL: A few years ago, I thought I wanted Bernie Sanders to win, but I think Joe Biden has been the leader we needed and was better prepared to rise to the occasion of various crises and saying and doing the right things at the right time, in particular on support for Israel and Ukraine, and other international crises. Could he have done more, or more faster? Maybe, but not likely due to outside constraints on his power.

T.C. in Islesboro, ME: Nobody's perfect, but I'm aghast at how negatively the national press paints his presidency. He has pulled our country back from the edge of the abyss to a place where we can once again hope and dream. He takes so much flak for being "too old," but I feel it takes that kind of perspective to lead in times like these. Kudos to Joe for finding the drive to take the heat and fight the good fight even after all these years.

C.T. in Tucson, AZ: I have to give it to Joe Biden, a fundamentally decent man, who is effective, relatable and reaching the pinnacle of his career at the exact moment the country truly needed him.

His opponents and critics don't really have anything concrete to attack him on, so they revert to attacking him over things he really doesn't have much control over, or they attack his age, or attack his children—which is just despicable and would have been unheard of before the age of Trump. They got nothing.

The attacks from the left seem so ignorant as to what his powers actually are; he has no power to stop the Israeli government's war in Gaza, and he has a hostile Congress, so much of the unicorn-and-rainbows wishlist they want didn't happen. Still, they blame him for it, which is ludicrous.

What I think is truly missed is what he has done to position the U.S. for what it faces. The world is changing, globalization is ending. The world will become much more insular, and in my view China will collapse within a decade—their demographics, financial instability and insular political system will doom it, and other regional powers will be ascendant like it was prior to World War II. However, there will be a renaissance in U.S. manufacturing and energy, and the IRA, the CHIPS act and directions of federal policy have positioned us well. Would any of this have happened under a Republican administration? I doubt it. But we needed it.

Joe's superpower is that his enemies believe their own propaganda that he is a doddering old fool. I think he is crafty like a fox myself; history will be kind to the Biden administration.

1. Liz Cheney

D.T. in Louisville, KY: Probably there are countless "most admirable" caretakers—the people who, in Jesse Jackson's phrase in his 1988 Democratic convention speech, "take the early bus" and change bedpans and ease suffering. But at least in the public realm, the person who courageously made common cause with previous bitter antagonists, relentlessly demanded that truth be uncovered and confronted, and knowingly sacrificed her hard-won career and an extremely good chance to be Speaker of the House or more, inspiring millions of people to pause and pay tribute to the meaning of integrity and principle, was Liz Cheney. Plenty of items on the other side of the ledger with her, but no one else surpassed her demonstration of courage and honor in 2023.

B.H. in Southborough, MA: OMG, am I really going to say the daughter of Satan's seed, Liz Cheney? The political ethics bar is so low she looks like a hero to democracy.

A.H. in Brier, WA: Since this is a political site, I am restricting myself to politicians. And it's strange coming from a progressive liberal like me, but the most admirable politician of 2023 is Liz Cheney.

I disagree with her about nearly everything... except saving the United States from its descent into fascism. She sacrificed her political career in defense of the Constitution, and for that reason alone she is my Most Admirable.

Thanks to everyone who sent in votes. Next up is the worst event of 2023; if you'd like to weigh in, there is still time. Send a message to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Worst Event." (V & Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger