Posts tagged as “2024 Republican Presidential Candidates”

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.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Dangerous and Demagogic Foreign Policy Views

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Dangerous and Demagogic Foreign Policy Views

By John R Guardiano on August 12, 2023

The glib millennial would have the GOP abandon its commitment to international leadership, forsake Ukraine, and appease Putin.

Thirty-eight-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy has never been elected to any political office—federal, state or local—and his half-baked ideas about America foreign policy show why he should be kept far away from the Oval Office.

Ramaswamy’s big idea is to turn Russia against China by ending American support for Ukraine, pledging that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO, and renewing economic ties with Moscow. This, he argues, is “a reverse maneuver of what Nixon accomplished with [Chinese dictator] Mao [Zedong] in 1972.”

Of course, Ramaswamy’s idea is ludicrous and unworkable: because despite whatever paper promises Russian dictator Vladimir Putin might make in order to fulfill his dream of conquering Ukraine, Russia and China today have strategic interests that coincide.

China and Russia. Both countries are opposed to the American-led, rules-based, liberal international order. And nothing America can do other than surrender, internationally, will appease or placate Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China.

By contrast, back in 1972, Mao’s China and Soviet Russia were already strategic adversaries that viewed each other with suspicion and alarm. The Sino-Soviet split had occurred more than a decade earlier, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

“…Frequent border skirmishes between the Soviets and the Chinese verged on all-out war,” notes history.com.

The situation today, obviously, is very different. Russia and China have put their historic differences in the rearview mirror to combat what they see as the greater and more immediate threat: the United States. Hence their 2022 “no limits” partnership or pact.

In short, Ramaswamy’s big idea is a pipe dream. It will never happen—or, if it does happen, it will prove as endurable and prophetic as Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 pledge, “peace for our time.”

The cost and collateral damage, meanwhile, will be deep-seated and profound. Ramaswamy’s attempt to appease Putin and forsake Ukraine will rupture NATO and probably result in the alliance’s demise as frontline states in Eastern Europe and the Nordic region rebel and vow to go their own way.

As for Asia, Ramaswamy promises to “deter China from annexing Taiwan by shifting from strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity.” But appeasing Putin will alarm and frighten American allies in Asia, who, consequently, will doubt the resolve, staying power, and commitment of the United States.

And with good reason. Ramaswamy says the United States should promise to defend Taiwan “until 2029 but not afterward.” By 2030, he argues,

we will have full semiconductor independence from Taiwan; significantly reduced economic independence on China; stronger relationships with India, Japan, and South Korea; and stronger U.S. homeland defense capabilities to protect against cyber, super-EMP, and nuclear attacks.

In other words, by 2030, America finally can withdraw, militarily and diplomatically, from Asia and Europe and revert back to fortress America, defense of the homeland, and protection of the Western Hemisphere.

Disaster. This would be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States. It would cede leadership of the world to China and Russia, who would now write the rules that other countries would be forced to follow and obey while America hid behind its phantom moat in the Western Hemisphere.

If we were living in 1723 or 1823, such an approach might be tenable. But it’s 2023. Americans are too engaged in the world, economically and commercially, to revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America.

Our economy, which depends heavily on international trade, will suffer in a world led and shaped by China and Russia, not the United States.

Demagoguery. Equally bad, Ramswamy engages in rank demagoguery to explain and defend his foreign policy of appeasement.

The Biden administration may be aiding Ukraine, he says, “to make good on a bribe from a nation whose state-affiliated company paid off the President’s son,” Hunter Biden.

Never mind the utter lack of evidence to support this nonsensical charge. And never mind that virtually all of Europe, too, has acted to aid Ukraine after it came under savage and unprovoked assault from Russia.

Ramaswamy also demagogically asserts that America must adopt his foreign policy of appeasement to avert “a potential nuclear war with Russia.” Never mind that, throughout the Cold War, the United States averted nuclear war precisely by checking and not appeasing Russian aggression.

The bottom line: Vivek is too naive, too inexperienced, and too gullible to trust with the reins of American power. He would surrender American international leadership to the likes of Xi and Putin. He would abandon and forsake our allies in Europe and Asia.

He would bring America home when Americans increasingly are going abroad. And he would revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America in a world in which isolated fortresses cannot long survive and prosper.

Simply put: Ramswamy’s dangerous and demagogic foreign policy views make him entirely unfit to be President of the United States.

Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshot courtesy of Fox News Sunday.

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.

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.