Posts published in “Politics”

Did the First GOP Presidential Debate Winnow the Field?

Did the First GOP Presidential Debate Winnow the Field?

By John R Guardiano on August 26, 2023

Yes, and it looks like it will come down to Haley and DeSantis vying for the right to take on the former president. Let’s hope Haley prevails.

With Donald Trump in a commanding lead for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, the big question coming out of the first GOP presidential debate is: what does it portend for the winnowing of the field?

That question is important because the assumption by political analysts all along has been that to defeat Trump, you need to winnow down the anti-Trump field to one primary challenger. Otherwise, the anti-Trump vote will splinter, thus allowing the former president to prevail with only a plurality, and not a majority, of the vote.

2016. That’s what happened in 2016, and Republicans eager to move beyond Trump are deathly worried that it might happen again this year. As New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu explains:

While it’s true that Mr. Trump has an iron grip on more than 30 percent of the electorate, the other 60 percent or so is open to moving forward with a new nominee…

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is consistently polling in the low 40 percent range. The floor of his support may be high, but his ceiling is low…

Mr. Trump must face a smaller field. It is only then that his path to victory shrinks…

After the results from Iowa come in, it is paramount that the field must shrink, before the New Hampshire primary, to the top three or four…

Provided the field shrinks by Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Trump loses. He will always have his die-hard base, but the majority is up for grabs

So, with that in mind, did the first 2024 GOP presidential debate winnow the field, or is it more splintered than ever?

Byron York argues persuasively that field has been winnowed from 13 candidates to at least seven candidates and, more likely, five candidates.

Winnowing the Field. For starters, he notes, four candidates—Larry Elder, Perry Johnson, Francis Suarez, and Will Hurd—did not meet the debate’s minimal qualification standards and thus were no-shows. That leaves nine candidates.

Two candidates, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-North Dakota) and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, “used funding gimmics to meet the RNC’s donor requirements, and both made little impact on the debate.

“There’s really no reason for them to continue participating in the debates,” York notes. “So that is a nine-candidate field going down to a seven-candidate field.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) may stay in the race for a while; however, it is clear that neither man can be nominated. Scott had a very weak debate performance and is not a compelling presidential candidate.

Pence had a strong debate performance, but “given Pence’s history as Trump’s vice president,” York writes, “he has no comfortable place in a race against the president he served.”

Final Five. That leaves five GOP presidential candidates: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina), former Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump.

Christie no doubt will leave the race in time for the anti-Trump vote to consolidate around a candidate who can deny Trump the nomination. Christie knows he is not that candidate and is committed to doing whatever it takes to defeat Trump, even if it means falling on his sword.

Vivek will not leave the race because is not running against Trump; he is running interference for Trump as the former president’s defender and blocking back.

That leaves DeSantis and Haley as the only viable candidates who can prevail against Trump. The danger is that neither of them will withdraw from the race; they will split the anti-Trump vote; and the former president will again win out with a plurality of the vote.

DeSantis won’t want to withdraw from the race because he has been the anti-Trump favorite all along, polling consistently a distant second to the former president.

DeSantis was underwhelming in the debate. His stellar record as governor, his superb management of the COVID crisis, and his fight against woke indoctrination in the schools have earned him GOP support; but he has been a weak, wooden, and uninspiring presidential candidate.

Haley, meanwhile, started out the race respectably, but did nothing to distinguish herself —until that is she literally lit it up in the debate.

“Voter interest in Nikki Haley is surging after the underdog presidential contender delivered a breakthrough performance during a combative Republican debate in Milwaukee,” write David Drucker, Audrey Fahlberg, and Steve Hayes in The Dispatch.

“We’ve raised more online in the last 24 hours than on any day since the campaign started,” says Haley’s campaign spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas.

Haley’s surge in the race is, indeed, well deserved. She would be the Republican Party’s most formidable presidential candidate against Joe Biden or Kamala Harris and is far better positioned than DeSantis to take down Trump.

She is simply a better and more compelling candidate. And the fact that she is a woman is a decided political advantage, given the GOP’s gender gap and loss of suburban women if Trump is the nominee.

But will DeSantis recognize this and bow out gracefully, thus giving Haley a one-on-one matchup against Trump?

Probably not—unless and until Haley can best him in one or more primary contests.

Conclusion. As I say, DeSantis probably has too much invested in this race to cede the nomination to Haley. As the number two candidate in the polls for many months, he no doubt feels entitled to be the party’s anti-Trump candidate.

But if GOP voters reject him and embrace Haley instead, DeSantis may have no choice but to face the music and accept defeat. We’ll know soon enough.

The Iowa Caucuses are Jan. 15; New Hampshire voters go to the polls a couple of weeks later; the Nevada Caucuses are Feb. 8; and South Carolina renders its verdict Feb. 24. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: YouTube video screenshots of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

DeSantis’s Ukraine Statement Shows He Follows Trump, Not Reagan

DeSantis’s Ukraine Statement Shows He Follows Trump, Not Reagan

By John R Guardiano on March 14, 2023

Because DeSantis has adopted Trump’s foreign policy of appeasement, Reagan conservatives no longer can support him. Instead, they must look to other 2024 GOP presidential candidates.

The war for the Republican Party can best be understood as pitting Reaganites against Trumpsters.

Reaganites believe in fiscal responsibility, debt reduction, free trade, peace through strength, a proactive and assertive U.S. foreign policy, and honest, judicious administration of government.

Trumpsters believe in fiscal irresponsibility, debt expansion, protectionism, appeasement and retreat, a go-it-alone, hidebound U.S. foreign policy, and a chaotic and suspect administration of government.

Those of us who had supported Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for the 2024 presidential nomination had hoped that he would pick up the Reagan mantle, take the fight to Trump, and reclaim the Republican Party, so that, once again, we can enjoy conservative political victories and not the steady and mounting stream of political losses brought about by the Trumpsters.

DeSantis’s Statement. Alas, as we now know, through the release of DeSantis’s statement about Russia and Ukraine to MAGA political boss Tucker Carlson, it is not to be. DeSantis has revealed himself as a political disciple not of Reagan but of Trump.

Indeed, like his mentor, Donald Trump, DeSantis calls Russia’s illegal and horrific war on Ukraine a “territorial dispute” that is not a vital interest of the United States. And he warns against becoming “further entangled” in this “territorial dispute,” because it “distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.”

Of course, much the same could have been said, and was said, about Nazi Germany’s “territorial disputes” with Poland and Czechoslovakia.

But farsighted conservative leaders then (Winston Churchill, for instance) recognized that the attempted Nazi German subjugation of Europe was not a “territorial dispute”; it was an attempt to conquer and enslave other countries and other peoples.

The same is true today of Russia’s war on Ukraine: It is not a “territorial dispute.” It is a naked attempt by one country to conquer and subsume another. And, as every American president, Republican and Democrat, has recognized since at least the Second World War, the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Europe remains peaceful, stable, and free.

China. DeSantis points out that the United States must devote its efforts to “checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Community Party.”

This is true. But China is formally aligned with Russia and will draw either inspiration of perspiration from our success or failure in Ukraine.

After all “nothing succeeds like success. Countries respect the prerogatives of the strong or successful horse. Failure, by contrast, breeds more failure.

DeSantis doesn’t seem to understand this. Nor does he seem to realize that the United States needs allies to confront China. But how likely are the Europeans to help us confront China if we abandon them on Ukraine?

China has designs on Taiwan. Is that also a “territorial dispute” which DeSantis thinks we should avoid becoming “entangled” in? Certainly, the analysis that he applies to Ukraine applies as well to Taiwan, a fact that is not lost on the Communist leaders of China.

DeSantis says that “the Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a defacto alliance with China.”

But the historical record clearly shows that China and Russia have had a defacto alliance against America and the West for many years. DeSantis suggests that appeasing Russia in Ukraine will somehow make Russia nice again.

Really? Why would anyone think this, given Russia’s two decades of antagonism toward the United States?

Arming Ukraine. DeSantis says that we mustn’t provide Ukraine with F-16s and long-range missiles, because these would enable Ukraine to “engage in offensive operations beyond its borders.”

This, he warns, “would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict” and possible result in a “hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable,” he declares.

But aircraft and long-range missiles are needed to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Is DeSantis opposed to Ukraine winning and retaining its independence and sovereignty?

Moreover, how does Ukraine defeating Russia increase the likelihood of a hot war between Russia and the United States? If anything, the opposite is true, no?

A defeated and chastened Russia exhausted from its war in Ukraine is far less likely to confront the United States simply because it lacks the means and wherewithal to do so.

Escalation. Finally, DeSantis warns against “regime change” in Russia and an “escalation” of the war in Ukraine.

But the Ukrainians obviously are not fighting for “regime change” in Russia. They are fighting for their territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. And an “escalation,” or further war, is likely if Ukraine loses, not if it wins.

If Ukraine loses, then an emboldened Russia will seek to cause further mischief for the United States in Asia and the Middle East, even as it looks for new “spheres of influence” (read: territorial subjugation and conquest) within Europe.

DeSantis warns against a “blank check” for Ukraine, but it looks like he would give Putin a “blank check” in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Is that in the American national interest?

Conclusion. For these reasons, GOP voters who take foreign policy seriously cannot possibly support DeSantis for president in 2024.

Instead, they must look elsewhere: to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senator Tim Scott, and Vice President Mike Pence. These men and women appear to be Reagaites. DeSantis, unfortunately, is a Trumpster.

Feature photo credit: Trump and DeSantis, two peas in the same isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy pod, courtesy of Vanity Fair.

Jacob Anthony Chansley and the January 6 Miscarriage of Justice

Jacob Anthony Chansley and the January 6 Miscarriage of Justice

By John R Guardiano on March 11, 2023

Chansley and other Jan. 6 defendants are peaceful and simple-minded dupes who got played by Trump and were screwed by the Biden Department of Injustice.

The Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was a shameful and disgraceful event for which President Trump was rightfully impeached (by the House of Representatives) and wrongfully acquitted (by the Senate).

As a result, no American who loves his country should ever think of voting for Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

If our ex-president had any sense of honor and shame, he would devote himself to good deeds and public works of charity and penance rather than run again for president.

But Trump’s dishonor and impeachable conduct does not mean that the thousands of Americans who came to the nation’s capital Jan. 6 were all “insurrectionists” who “threatened our democracy.”

Peaceful Dupes. This characterization is simply untrue as we knew at the time and as we now know in more detail today. The vast majority of the protesters, in fact, were peaceful but simple-minded dupes who were played and taken in by Trump’s lies and deception.

Two to three hundred of the protesters, by contrast, were violent agitators who used flag poles, baseball bats, bear spray, and other items to violently assault the police. These violent agitators deserve swift and appropriate punishment. No one disputes that.

Yet, in a gross act of prosecutorial overreach, many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters reportedly have been charged with crimes and subsumed into the criminal justice system for months upon months of never-ending incarceration and administrative delay while their cases are reviewed and prosecuted.

For many of the protesters, their “crime” was to show up at the Capitol and “trespass” into the building, thereby “obstructing” an official federal proceeding.

Trespassing and Obstruction. But the charge of “trespassing” and “obstruction” is manifestly unfair when you consider that most of the protesters genuinely believed they had a right to enter the Capitol. Trump himself basically said they had that right in his earlier Jan. 6 speech inciting them to “stop the steal.”

The Capitol, after all, is often referred to as “the people’s house.” The inference is that since the Capitol, or “people’s house,” is paid for and supported by the taxpaying public, then the public has a right to enter the building.

For this reason, some of the protesters shouted “This is our house!” as they stormed into the Capitol building. And in fact, the Capitol historically has been open and hospitable to visiting constituents in a way that other federal buildings (e.g., the FBI headquarters and the Pentagon) have not been.

The Capitol Police, moreover, implicitly buttressed this notion when, at some entry points, they opened the doors of the Capitol and stood by and watched as protesters streamed into the building.

We saw this in video taken by participants and observers of the Jan. 6 protest. And we see it again with the release of some 41,000 hours of surveillance video, snippets of which were shown on Fox News this week by Tucker Carlson.

Now, Carlson is no one’s idea of a fair or honest journalist. His reporting and analysis of Russia’s war on Ukraine has been dishonest and objectively pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine. But the Jan. 6 video that Carlson has shown doesn’t lie.

One defendant in particular, Jacob Anthony Chansley, appears to have been unfairly singled out for harsh and excessive punishment.

Chansely was sentenced to 41 months in prison for “obstruction of an official proceeding.” But as law professor Jonathan Turley observes:

The newly released Fox footage from that day raises serious questions over the prosecution and punishment of Chansley. The videotapes aired on Tucker Carlson this week show Chansley being escorted by officers through the Capitol.

Two officers appear to not only guide him to the floor but actually appear to be trying to open locked doors for him.

At one point, Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.

Why didn’t the police stop Chansley? Because, we are told, there was a violent riot going on nearby and the outnumbered police were trying to “deescalate the situation.” Confronting Chansley, we are told, by Andrew C. McCarthy,

might have attracted attention and sparked a forcible reaction from him and other demonstrators. That would have been dangerous for the police (many of whom suffered injuries during the uprising) and for the demonstrators (one of whom was killed by an officer, and others of whom died during that afternoon’s frenzy).

The police objective, in those moments, was to stabilize an already bad situation so that it did not become a bloodletting.

Self-Serving Rationalization. I’m sorry, but this is a hyperbolic and self-serving rationalization for the Capitol Police interactions with Chansley. And it simply does not comport with the factual record, the video footage, and the geography of the Capitol building.

Yes, there was a violent riot that was developing outside of the Capitol; and there was a swarm of loud and agitated protesters within other parts of the Capitol. But as Turley points out, at the time in question, Chansley was far removed from the crowd, the noise, and the agitation.

At no point in the videotapes does Chansley appear violent or threatening. Indeed, he appears to thank the officers for their guidance and assistance. On the Senate floor, Chansley actually gave a prayer to thank the officers who agreed “to allow us into the building.”

The “new footage,” notes Wilfred Reilly, “reveals that Chansley and his first line of protesters/rioters were heavily outnumbered—at one point nine to one—by Capitol force officers with semi-automatic sidearms once inside the building.”

Adds New York Post reporter Miranda Devine:

In a jailhouse interview played by Carlson, he [Chansley], says: “The one very serious regret that I have [is] believing that when we were waved in by the police officers, that it was acceptable.”

And how, exactly, was Chansley, engaged in “obstruction of an official proceeding”? He walked into an empty Senate gallery opened for him by the Capitol Police. And for that, this nonviolent, first offender, and Navy veteran was given a “heavy 41-month sentence” after initially being held in solitary confinement, Turley notes.

Violent offenders, by contrast, are sometimes given much lighter sentences. David Jakubonis, for instance, was charged last year with second degree assault for attacking New York GOP gubernatorial candidate Rep. Lee Zeldin.

Jakubonis was arrested July 23, 2022, and released in late October “under strict conditions,” according to RochsterFirst.com.

He would have to go through a 28-day alcohol program at the VA in Bath, he would wear a GPS monitor and a monitor to gauge his alcohol intake, and after the Bath program, go to Veterans Treatment Court and live at the Richards House—a housing program provided by the Veterans Outreach Center.

Evidence Withheld. In light of all this, why did the Judge Royce Lamberth, who adjudicated Chansley’s case, come down so hard on him?

In large part, says Turley, because the judge didn’t know what we now know. He didn’t see the same video footage that we all have now seen.

Incredibly, this footage was withheld from Chansley’s attorney—even though, in the American legal system, exculpatory evidence must be shared with a defendant and his attorney.

“I have great respect for Judge Lamberth,” says Turley. He “has always shown an admirable resistance to public pressure in high profile cases. I cannot imagine that Lamberth would not have found this footage material and frankly alarming.”

The bottom line: justice is supposed to be blind and discriminating. But it is hard not to conclude that in the case of Chansley—and doubtless other wrongly maligned Jan. 6 defendants as well—justice was politicized, disproportionate, and vengeful.

Chansley and other like-minded Jan. 6 defendants are guilty of being simple-minded dupes who fell for Trump’s lies and deception. But they are not violent insurrectionists. They threatened no one and they assaulted no one. Others did and they deserve their punishment and comeuppance.

But Chansley deserves better—and America deserves better—than the miscarriage of justice carried out against him without liberty and justice for all in the name of freedom and democracy.

Our nation should right this wrong even as it rejects Trump’s contemptible quest to regain the presidency.

Feature photo credit: Jan. 6 defendant Jacob Anthony Chansley, courtesy of CBS News.

DeSantis Should Say ‘Yes’ to European Security and ‘No’ to NATO ‘Unity’

DeSantis Should Say ‘Yes’ to European Security and ‘No’ to NATO ‘Unity’

By John R Guardiano on March 4, 2023

How the 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner should triangulate between Biden and Trump on the issue of NATO and Ukraine.

Let’s cut to the chase: Biden wants to appease Germany and France. Trump wants to appease Putin. DeSantis should reject both of these defeatist “America Last” approaches.

Instead, DeSantis should say that he disagrees with Biden and Trump. Contra Biden, NATO unity is not the supreme value upon which American foreign policy ought to be based.

And so, appeasing German and French demands for a premature negotiated solution that sacrifices Ukrainian sovereignty is not something he will ever accept. That would only embolden Putin and invite a second Russian-Ukraine war.

New and Old Alliances. Moreover, all NATO countries have pledged to spend two percent of their GDP on defense. However, Germany and France have consistently failed to achieve this.

If this does not change pronto, DeSantis should say, then America will withdraw from NATO and form a new security alliance with Eastern Europe (Poland and Ukraine most notably), the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Turkey, Britain, and the Nordic countries (Finland and Sweden, most importantly).

Finally, as part of this new European security architecture, all 38,000+ American troops will be moved out of Germany and placed into Poland and the Baltic States.

That is where the threat now lies. Germany is not at risk of a Russian invasion; Poland and the Baltic States are, DeSantis should say.

America First.

Trump’s Appeasement. But while Biden deserves criticism for appeasing Germany and France, Trump deserves contempt for seeking to appease Putin.

The Russian dictator has consistently sought to sabotage American interests internationally, while undermining the rules-based liberal order that has helped to bring peace and prosperity to the United States and its allies.

Yet by forcing Ukraine to negotiate with Putin, and by demanding an immediate end to the war, Trump would effect a definitive Ukrainian defeat.

This would embolden Putin, strengthen his dictatorial hold over Russia, and invite new European wars in the future. And that, DeSantis should say, is a recipe for disaster.

NATO ‘Unity’. The United States of America will not be beholden to NATO nor to the chimera of NATO “unity.” Unity is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself.

The American national interest lies in preserving peace and stability in Europe. It does not lie in NATO “unity.” If the latter prevents the former, then the latter must go.

No alliance lasts forever. If NATO no longer serves its founding purpose, then the United States should withdraw from NATO and develop a new security architecture that does, DeSantis should say.

The truth is: the interests of the East Europeans and Northeast Europeans differ markedly from the interests of the French and the Germans. The former are directly threatened by Russia in a way that the latter simply are not.

Defense Spending. That’s why defense spending as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher in Poland and the Baltic States than it is in France and Germany.

Poland, for instance, now spends 2.5 percent of its GDP on defense and aims to increase that to four percent this year. Germany, by contrast, has under-funded defense for decades—and, even now, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has failed to reach the minimum NATO target of two percent of GDP on defense.

Sorry, but if leading NATO countries like Germany and France refuse to abide by their pledge to spend two percent of GDP on defense, then the much-vaunted NATO “unity” is meaningless and ineffectual. And if NATO will not commit to a clear and decisive Ukrainian win and Russian defeat, then what good is NATO?

For these reasons, the United States needs to play hardball with Germany and France. DeSantis should pledge to end the Biden administration’s appeasement of these two countries and to develop a new 21st Century security alliance with Eastern Europe and the Nordic countries.

America First.

Politics. This is good public policy and good domestic politics. Appeasement of Germany and France in the name of NATO “unity” is leading to disaster in Ukraine; and, domestically, the American people simply will not support another long, drawn-out and inconclusive “forever war.”

The American way of war is to win quickly and decisively. And so, we must seek out allies and alliances that serve that end, in Ukraine and elsewhere.

In this way, DeSantis can distinguish himself from both Biden and Trump, while rejecting their policies of appeasement. Therein lies victory—and a victory with important, much-needed, and consequential public policy ramifications.

America First.

Feature photo credit: (L) Florida governor and 2024 GOP presidential front-runner Ron DeSantis. (R) Disgraced and twice-impeached President Donald Trump. Courtesy of Business Insider.

DeSantis Should Triangulate Between Biden and Trump re: Ukraine

DeSantis Should Triangulate Between Biden and Trump re: Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on February 19, 2023

Biden is pushing for a long, drawn-out tie. Trump would effect a quick Russian win. DeSantis should argue for a swift Ukrainian victory.

Nikki Haley’s entry into the 2024 presidential race has raised anew the question of how Ukraine will figure in the Republican presidential primary.

More specifically, how should Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the clear and dominant frontrunner in the race, approach the issue of Ukraine, given the conspicuous rise of isolationist or non-interventionist Republicans led by one, Donald J. Trump?

Haley has positioned herself as a hawk firmly in synch with the Reagan Republican tradition of peace through strength and military aid to freedom fighters willing to bear arms for their own freedom and against America’s enemies.

Trump, meanwhile, has gone soft and limp. He would, he says, force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate and thereby end the war “within 24 hours.” Cutting off, or cutting back on, American military aid to Ukraine, he argues, would help force the two countries to negotiate “peace.”

Of course, the resultant “peace” would be a frozen conflict in which Russia retains significant chunks of Ukrainian territory while rearming and preparing for the day when it can reignite the conflict and conquer all of Ukraine. This is the “peace” that Putin wants and hopes for.

DeSantis wisely has not spoken out about Ukraine. Unlike Trump and unlike Haley, he has a full-time job as governor of America’s third-most populous state, Florida. And he was just reelected governor there by the biggest margin statewide in 40 years, and by the biggest margin ever for a Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate.

The people of Florida expect him to do the job to which he was just reelected and Ukraine, obviously, is out of his lane as governor.

However, when DeSantis does announce later this year that he is running for president, the war in Ukraine most likely will be raging still and with no end in sight thanks to Biden’s slow walking of aid to Ukraine. And DeSantis no longer will be able to ignore the issue. He will have to take a stand that is bound to be controversial with some GOP voters.

Here’s what I think DeSantis should do and will do: He should triangulate between Biden and Trump. He should say that both men have bad and dangerous ideas re: Ukraine.

Biden, as Sen. Tom Cotton has observed,

has dragged his feet all along, hesitating fearfully to send the Ukrainians the weapons and intelligence they need to win.

Today, Mr. Biden stubbornly refuses to provide fighter jets, cluster munitions and long-range missiles to Ukraine. As a result of Mr. Biden’s half-measures, Ukraine has only half-succeeded.

Trump, meanwhile, wants to effectively pull the rug out from under Ukraine and thereby give Putin a victory. But neither approach serves the American national interest.

The United States, DeSantis should say, does not want a long, drawn-out war that kills countless Ukrainians while consuming vast amounts of American money and scarce military resources. Yet that is what Biden’s dithering and delay has wrought.

Nor does America want a Russian victory that will create a new zone of war and conflict in Europe. Yet that is what Trump’s call for “negotiations” and an “immediate” end to the war will inevitably bring about.

Instead, Americans want, and America needs, a swift and decisive Ukrainian victory, which is possible with real presidential leadership. DeSantis will provide this leadership and thereby quickly end the war, but on terms favorable to the American national interest. He will, finally, put “America First” in Ukraine.

Politics. Will this work politically in today’s Republican Party? I believe that it will. Most Republicans, and certainly most GOP primary voters, are not isolationists or anti-interventionists. However, they are opposed to long, drawn-out wars with no end in sight.

As they see it, the problem in Ukraine is that Biden doesn’t have a strategy for winning. Instead, he’s committed to half-measures for “as long as it takes”—and “as long as it takes” suggests another interminable, decades-long “forever war.” No thanks.

Fortunately, the war in Ukraine doesn’t have to end that way. There is a real and viable alternative waiting to happen but for a lack of presidential leadership.

As a former Navy JAG attorney who saw service in “The Surge” in Iraq (2007), DeSantis surely understands this. He knows war in a way that Donald Trump never has and never will. (Trump received five military draft deferments to avoid service in the Vietnam War.)

GOP primary voters will respond well to a candidate who unapologetically puts American interests first and pledges to swiftly and successfully end the war in Ukraine by ensuring Russia loses. Such an approach will distinguish DeSantis from his main primary opponent, Donald Trump, and also his likely general election opponent, Joe Biden.

Triangulating between Trump and Biden on Ukraine and on other issues (Social Security, Medicare, and entitlements, for instance, where Trump wants to do nothing and Biden wants only to raise taxes) will allow DeSantis to crush Trump in the primaries while simultaneously appealing to centrists and independents in the general election.

Nikki Haley is pioneering this approach, but it will be a winning strategy for Ron DeSantis.

Feature photo credit: Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, former President Trump, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are all vying for the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination, courtesy of Newsweek.