DeSantis v Newsom debate: governors clash on crime, abortion, guns and more
Ron DeSantis, a hard-right contender for the Republican presidential nomination, took the stage in Georgia on Thursday for a debate one eager website dubbed “The Vendetta in Alpharetta.”
But the Florida governor’s opponent was not Donald Trump, the former president and clear primary frontrunner, or any other Republican contender. His opponent was Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California,who is not seeking his party’s nomination next year, given Joe Biden’s grip on the White House.
Both governors smiled for the cameras then attacked from the off, often seeking to tie their opponent to the looming presidential race.
DeSantis said: “I think California has more natural advantages than any state in the country. You almost have to try to mess California up. Yet, that’s what Gavin Newsom has done.
“… They have failed because of his leftist ideology. And the choice for America is this. What [Joe] Biden and [Kamala] Harris and Newsom want to do is take the California model and do that nationally. In Florida we show conservative principles work. This country must choose freedom over failure.”
Newsom said he was “here to tell the truth about the Biden-Harris record and also compare and contrast.
“… Ron discusses his record in a Republican state. As a point of contrast that is different as daylight and darkness. You want to bring us back to the pre-1960s or older, America in reverse. You want to roll back hard-earned national rights on voting rights and civil rights, human rights and women’s rights, not just access to abortion, but also access to contraception.
“You want to weaponise grievance, you are focused on false separateness. You in particular run on a banning binge, a cultural purge, intimidating and humiliating people you disagree with. You and [former] President Trump are really trying to light democracy on fire.”
Fox News organisers called it a “slugfest” even before it began and that was what unfolded, both men throwing rhetorical jabs, but more often talking over each other in a series of windmilling brawls.
It was moderated, such as it could be, by Sean Hannity. Long close to Trump, the prime time anchor and “culture war” warrior called his Trump-less project The Great Red v Blue State Debate. Fox News said it would highlight issues “including the economy, the border, immigration, crime and inflation”. It also said that without a studio audience, the governors would have “equal opportunity to respond and ad
dress each issue”.
In the event, Hannity confessed immediately to being a conservative, then asked about internal migration, citing high numbers leaving California and half as many leaving Florida. Newsom cited his own statistics. DeSantis liked those from Fox. Another pattern was established.
For both men, the debate carried risk. DeSantis, in reverse in the polls, risked being seen as desperate and, perhaps, lacking in political and physical stature. Subject to reports of lifts in his shoes, the 5ft 11in governor squared up to a 6ft 3in opponent who seemed to smile more naturally too.
But Newsom risked – and duly received – repeated questions about what exactly he is up to, given Biden’s seat in the Oval Office but also polling which shows voters think the president too old for a second term. At 56, Newsom is 25 years younger than Biden. Of course, that most likely means his target is 2028, a post-Biden primary.
Newsom defended Biden’s record and mental fitness, insisting he was not positioning himself to succeed. DeSantis insisted his rival was mounting a “shadow campaign”, and mocked Biden as old and infirm.
Crosstalk and accusations of lying persisted. Newsom scored one early blow by using DeSantis’s bluster. “As he continues to talk over me,” he said, “I’ll talk to the American people.” That won him a spell straight to camera. On a question about Covid policies, Newsom scored again by focusing on DeSantis’s change in tactics, from following the science to waging culture wars.
But DeSantis hit back, using Hannity’s questions as most seemed intended: as tee-ups, hitting Newsom on crime, immigration and particularly alleged elitism in any policy to hand.
When Newsom hit DeSantis on gun control, regarding loosened laws, DeSantis responded: “People are leaving California in droves, largely because public safety is catastrophic.” Newsom responded with more statistics. DeSantis talked over him, saying, “I know you like to jabber, I know you like to lie.” Hannity fought for control.
Asked about Florida’s controversial “don’t say gay law”, regarding LGBTQ + issues in schools, DeSantis produced a book he called “Gender Queer” [in fact Gender Queer: A Memoir, by Maia Kobabe], censors’ blocks applied to cartoon appendages, which the governor said he’d removed from schools. Newsom dismissed the claim such books were on the curriculum in California and asked about bans affecting Black authors including Toni Morrison and Amanda Gorman.
“What you’re doing is using education as a source for your cultural scourge,” Newsom said, adding: “I don’t like the way you demean people, I don’t like the way you demean the LGBTQ+ community.”
Each man called the other a bully. DeSantis held up another visual aid: a map he said showed San Francisco covered in “human feces”. Newsom laughed. Hannity switched the subject to Israel and Hamas, then China.
On abortion – a losing issue for Republicans since the supreme court removed the federal right – Newsom hammered DeSantis for signing a sixweek ban. Hannity gave DeSantis the floor, to explain why he introduced it. Would DeSantis support a national sixweek ban, Newsom repeated. DeSantis did not answer.
“It’d be great if you guys co-operated,” Hannity pleaded. “I’m not a potted plant here.”
Neither man showed much interest in that. Then, a surprise. After what seemed a closing question, seeking good things about each others’ states, the governors agreed to stay onstage for some more.
Only, they didn’t. When Hannity came back from an ad break, DeSantis and Newsom were gone.
You in particular run on a banning binge, a cultural purge, intimidating and humiliating people you disagree with
Gavin Newsom
a supreme court judge. At her Senate confirmation hearing she laid out her philosophy of judicial restraint. Spelling out her commitment to the constitution’s separation of powers, she said: “Judges are not only not authorised to engage in executive or legislative functions, they are also ill-equipped to do so.” In the subsequent vote by the chamber she only missed unanimous confirmation because one of the 100 members was absent through illness.
During her years in the court she became extremely popular among the staff as a humorous and approachable boss. She started an aerobics class for female employees, in which she was an enthusiastic participant, and became well known for the informality of the conferences she held with young lawyers, handing out popcorn while discussing cases.
Largely under her influence, the court steered a firm, middle-of-the-road course through most of the contentious issues it had to confront. That was a solid achievement in itself. But her greater contribution was successfully to destroy the myth that women lacked judicial skills of the highest calibre. She cut a very large hole in the glass ceiling.
O’Connor retired from the supreme court in 2006, after her husband developed Alzheimer’s disease; he died in 2009. She continued as an active public speaker, and was an advocate for civic education. In 2018 she announced that she had developed early stage Alzheimer’s herself and would no longer play a part in public affairs.
She is survived by her sons, Scott, Brian and Jay, six grandchildren and her brother, Alan.
•Sandra Day O’Connor, jurist, born 26 March 1930; died 1 December 2023
Harold Jackson died in 2021
unfortunately very clear that the invocation of the Holy Spirit by some has the aim of bringing forward an agenda that is more political and human than ecclesial and divine.”
He said it was his duty to speak out: “The sheep depend on the courage of pastors who must protect them from the poison of confusion, error and division.”
At a meeting of Vatican heads of offices last week, Francis said Burke was a source of disunity in the church, and was using his privileges as a retired cardinal against the church, the Associated Press reported.
Other Catholic conservatives have said Francis’s removal of Burke’s salary and apartment was vindictive and misjudged, and would shore up support for Burke.
Opposition to Pope Francis is not new. He has antagonised many at the Vatican with his denunciations of the concentration of power in the hands of the few and the privileges they have accorded themselves. Right from the start of his papacy he said the Catholic church must become “a church of the poor for the poor”, and has espoused issues such as inequality, migration and the climate crisis.
For 10 years, conservatives in the church have sought to undermine Francis,
efforts that the pope has mostly borne with equanimity. But now, perhaps as the clock is ticking on his papacy, Francis appears to be more determined to tackle his opponents head on.
Austen Ivereigh, Francis’s biographer, wrote this week: “The question most Catholics have in response to the decision of Pope Francis to remove the Vatican privileges of Cardinal Raymond Burke will not be, ‘why did he do this?’ but ‘what on earth took him so long?’.
“The pope is an astonishingly patient man, and he loves to give people second chances. Anyone who has followed the activities, speeches, and shenanigans of the traditionalist American cardinal this past decade will have been amazed at how Burke has been allowed constantly to undermine the pope’s authority, setting himself against the papacy as a counter-magisterium, and building a lucrative career portraying himself as the true guardian of the tradition.”
When the time comes to choose a new pope, the gathering of cardinals from around the world, known as the conclave, will be highly charged as different factions seek to ensure their man is the frontrunner.
Francis has acted, in this regard, by creating 21 new cardinals in September, meaning almost three-quarters of the 137 cardinals eligible to vote in the conclave have been chosen by him.
For Burke, 75, the loss of his stipend and apartment will fuel his antagonism towards Francis. Although humiliating, Francis’s move will not impair Burke’s popularity in conservative Catholic circles, nor impact his lucrative speaking engagements and book deals. And, most significantly, he still holds his trump card: a vote in the conclave that chooses the next pope.