Just taking a few notes here as I watch this thing.
Newsom gets points for appearing on Fox, kudos.
Nothing Newsom will say about his record in California will be true.
Nothing DeSantis says will change his fate in the 2024 primary.
Hannity begins by asking about people leaving blue states for red.
DeSantis begins sharply, blaming Newsom personally. This is a bogus move because the question is about policy, not personalities. He went political and I think it made him look small, left an opening for Newsom.
Newsom says he's there to compare Biden-Harris's record to DeSantis's record (which is smart, because his own record is poor). He ignores the question about people leaving blue states for red states by going straight for the cultural questions, accusing DeSantis of "banning" blah blah.
Hannity and DeSantis point out he didn't answer the question.
Newsom talks about how great California is. "California simply has no peers." He's right! But the question is about momentum, not resting on past achievements. California is heading in the wrong direction.
DeSantis gets a good shot in by noting that Newsom's in-laws moved to Florida. Newsom says more Floridians are moving to California in the last two years.
The next question is about taxes ... Newsom talks about high taxes in Florida, and DeSantis rightly points out that nobody moves from Florida to California to pay lower taxes. Newsom starts talking about "Bidenomics" and gets petty, hitting DeSantis for "smiling and smirking."
The debate meandered into regulation, COVID... I've lost track. Newsom is hitting DeSantis ... from the right? I can't follow.
The next question is about immigration. Newsom accuses DeSantis of favoring amnesty in Congress, and then "using people as pawns" in sending migrants to Martha's Vineyard (which was brilliant, IMO).
The debate's half over, and I've learned nothing, except maybe that political leaders at the top of the American pile have no idea how to talk to each other, or to the people.
Second half... we're on to questions about crime.
Hannity asks Newsom about California's high crime rate. Newsom says "we're near 50-year lows."
Next comes mass shootings.
Then book bans.
DeSantis just did something really important: he brought one of the supposedly "banned" books, "Genderqueer," to the debate. I happen to think this book is OK for older teenagers, but DeSantis is right that it's not age-appropriate for young children. That's not banning books.
Newsom accuses DeSantis of demeaning LGBTQ people. No examples. Hannity nails Newsom by asking him whether pornographic books should be in schools; he dodges.
The next question is a shouting match on abortion. Newsom tries desperately to avoid answering the question about whether he favors abortion until birth. Clearly he does.
Then we're on to a question about Biden, and whether he should step aside.
Next: gas prices, and whether there's an alternative on fossil fuels
DeSantis nails Newsom on his phony claim about gas prices being caused "price gouging" by oil companies by asking an obvious question: is California the only state where they are "gouging"? He points out California's insane EV mandates as an example of bad energy policy driving higher prices.
I actually think DeSantis is getting stronger. He's better against Democrats than against Republicans.
The last segment of the debate is about homelessness, a major problem in California (and going down in Florida). DeSantis hits the piñata. Newsom: goes for social issues, avoids the question.
DeSantis brings up the San Francisco poop reporting app!
Last question, on foreign policy: how can Israel win the way Biden is restricting it?
OK, actual last question, on China.
DeSantis says it's the #1 threat.
Newsom talks about Nikki Haley.
Hannity asks what each loves about the other's state.
"I do believe California has more natural advantages than any state in the country." - DeSantis, regretting that Californians are leaving.
Newsom doesn't say anything about Florida. Praises DeSantis's family and military service.
DeSantis wins. But I'm biased against Newsom.
I started out thinking that this was a bad idea for DeSantis. Now I think DeSantis made the case that he can debate Democrats (after struggling against Republicans). He took down the supposed "better" alternative to Biden. I'm not going to predict a DeSantis comeback, but he did very well for himself.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
