Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stand head and shoulders above the rest of their partisan peers in their ability to drive the conversation about illegal immigration. What’s the X factor that makes DeSantis and Abbott play to win, and why do most Republican governors seem like they’re playing not to lose?
Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott create five new episodes of Right Angle each week, funded by our Members. Your Membership unlocks access to backstage content and makes you an author on the Member-written blog (if you wish), and connects you with thousands of committed conservatives through the forums and comments. You’ll also find a vast archive of thousands of hours of conservative content. Tap the big green button above to join.
If you enjoyed this episode and want to say so with your hard-earned money, tap the big blue button above to make a one-time or recurring donation with PayPal or credit card.
28 replies on “The X Factor: Why Don’t All GOP Governors Act Like Florida’s DeSantis and Texas’ Abbott?”
I was very pleased to hear the out-of-the-box comments on the 17th amendment. Without the 17th we would essentially have term limits. As each new state legislature would likely appoint a new set of senators every 6 years. And yes, that was the intent of the founders- to make a branch of the government that was totally beholden to the states. I see no way of ever gaining that amendment back. Senators would have to vote against their own power hungry nature to even consider repeal.
As a democratically elected constitutional republic, our representatives have lost the idea that we send them to DC as essentially PROXY votes for what we want them to do. They instead behave like they are going to work for Washington DC Inc. Otherwise, somebody explain to me how my own rep (John Carter) would vote to send $40B to Zelinsky when he presides over a district with Fort Hood, and it is those soldiers who we would put in harms way should this lead to a war that would mean nothing to America. Or, why would he vote for a national vaccine registry database? Yep, that’s DC Inc. thinking at work there.
At least our governor fights back. Go Abbott.
Or really on the other side.
That’s easy, they’re all cowards.
On Dane Geld, you might want to take a look at this. Dane-Geld, Kipling – YouTube
17th delende est!
The Federal Government is superseding the State government using the power of money. Over half of Americans are currently taking money/benefits administered from the federal side. Of course this means that anything threatening that flow of dollars will mean their votes.
This is why the Dems hang their hats on voter turnout. The only way the conservatives win is if the left doesn’t show up at the polls.
It can be argued that Florida and Texas have only one major leftwing city left and these city governments have taken huge hits politically and made huge mistakes. DeSantis and Abbott have been able to neutralize them. Virginia and Arizona is in transition to the point where the giant Marxist city in their midst is neutralized or will be soon. In the other states with Republican governors these Marxist cities are bigger, better funded and more intransigent that the rest of the state. Most constitutions have a bias to favors the rural districts. This is true in the USA so you get Republican Governors and Representatives in Washington. However the big city is not really under their control. The problem is not the states its a dozen cities: New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Baltimore. It was Phoenix but there are changes afoot there. And in Each city the heart of the problem is the major university.
You’re dead-on that Atlanta is the big problem for the conservatives in Georgia. But Georgia Tech is not the reason. Other local “institutions of higher learning” like Morehouse College, Georgia State, and Emory are primarily liberal, especially Emory – an expensive, private university that is more of a northeastern school than a southern one. The problem in Atlanta is the history of MLK and the “cash cow” that the civil rights history has been parlayed into by race-baiting, division-of-the-races-profiting, “Reverends” of the Church.
Yes, the fun really starts when you point out that MLK was a Republican. I almost got lynched by a black, African but he had been in the USA for a while, taxi driver.
I am expecting 20% of the black vote to got to the Maga Republicans in the mid terms. That will trigger the left to attack blacks. That race traitor dialog in the black suburbs may shift another 10 to 20 % by 2024.
Well done, gentlemen! I’ve had these thoughts for some years now. I would suggest that we adopt the “Enumberated Powers Act” recommended by DownsizeDC.org, which calls for all bills presented to or by Congress must include a specification where the Constitution authorizes the fedgov to do this.
I’m sure you agree that the Constitution does not authorize the fedgov to run health care, education, abortion, welfare, or many (most) other things it is involved in,.
Stan Hall, Kansas City, MO
Just as Trump was an outsider who could attempt to change the US Government, we need to vote in outsiders into the State Houses. If a state Governor comes up through the ranks of his Party, he then becomes an insider; he will owe favors to the powers in that party. If the powers in the party don’t want opposition to the Feds, then Govs will not oppose Fed.
Rich people have more power than middle class….so if the Rich don’t want opposition to the Feds, the Governor is not going to oppose the Feds. Here, Trump’s wealth shielded him from rich people…..he did not need their money or support, so he could try to change the Feds.
Turns out the ratty Repubs in the Fed Govt were willing to join with the ratty Dems, and Trump was stimied (not a single Trump campaign promise fulfilled during 1st 2 years of office, even when Repubs held majorities in both House and Senate.). If you got ratty state legislators, good Govs will be stimied.
If we had governors who were not power mad, and were not beholden to the “leave it alone” brigade, then we’d see more like DeSantis and Abbott. Maybe the people of Florida and Texas are braver than the rest of us wrt telling Feds to kiss my ass. So those 2 state’s Governors feel safer opposing the Feds. At least that’s my take on the subject.
Why do we assume that just because someone belongs to a certain group, a certain political party, that they hold certain principles?
I don’t belong to a political party, because I agree with George Washingon about the danger from cultish political groups.
Unlike many of my fellow Americans who dwell on their ancestrial roots in other countries I “identify” as an American, I don’t hyphenate. For me defining what I mean by “American” is easy and unlike politicians I will define what that means to me. When I took my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not a person or political party, I meant it.
A quick definition is that I believe in our Constitutionally based, representative republic, that recognizes its just power is derived from the consent of the people, that it supports and defends individual soverignty, liberty, and the responsibility for self-governance.
There’s an old saying that’s more appropriate than the Dane geld thing. Danes were foreigners and Dane geld was collected under threat of invasion and being ransacked. The Federal Government, to my knowledge isn’t threatening to send the Marines into Texas or Florida to seize power and loot those states. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
That more appropriate saying is …
“Once you take the King’s shilling, you are the King’s man.”
It means that your loyalty and cooperation are bought and paid for in a financial transaction. This is a British saying that stems from the practice of the Crown paying one shilling (a very small amount of money equivalent to a single day’s wages in the military of that day) to a new military recruit as an earnest payment for enlisting. “Taking the King’s shilling” meant you’re bound by your agreement to enlist.
You could return the shilling and be released from your commitment to volunteer up until the time you were sworn in. This almost never happened as a shilling coincidentally or not was just about the right amount of money to pay for a decent evening’s drinking in a tavern. After which you no longer had a shilling to give back and so avoid your enlistment commitment. After you’re sworn to military service (the Brits call this ‘attestation’) you no longer had the option to remain in civilian life whether you had a shilling to give back or not.
There’s an interesting history behind the saying but it has evolved to its present day meaning of accepting an ‘offer of profit’ from the government.
Which makes the saying wholly appropriate to this topic. When a state Governor takes money from the Federal Government he becomes obligated to do the will of the Feds. Or he will lose/be forced to pay back that money. He will remain obligated as long as he continues to accept Federal money. However, unlike Dane geld he can refuse the offer at any time and he will not see his state invaded and looted by US Federal troops as a result.
Montana was a case in point that exemplifies this principle. Alone, as far as I know, Montana told the Feds to keep their highway money and set its own speed limits as it saw fit. Montana decided it would be more advantageous to commerce, considering the vast distances travel in that state involved, to let people drive on Montana roads at a reasonable speed.
I’m an American of Danish heritage. I have no problem with the historic idea that my ancestors beat up a bunch of wimps too timid to fight and took their money. Repeatedly. The context of that era is unlike what we have today and I find that situation no more repugnant than the idea that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson held slaves. Which is to say not at all. That was the way things were back then and we’ve come a long way since in no small part to the evolution of Western thought in governance. Much of which has been due to American leadership in the West.
The lesson there is not that the Danes were evil in extracting Dane geld, they were actually pretty smart to avoid losses and expenses of invading and holding territory in that historical context. A lot of Brits are alive today who had ancestors that didn’t die in a fight like that too.
The lesson of Dane geld is you better have the balls to fight if you don’t want to pay. That is the point of the saying “Once you take the Dane geld you’re never rid of the Dane.” Fight or pay and if you fight and lose the results will be worse than they would have been.
As I’ve just explained, that’s not really appropriate to this situation.
The lesson of The King’s Shilling is that if you accept payment you do as you’re told. If you don’t want to be told what to do, do not accept payment. This is much more appropriate to the topic under consideration.
Now all of that said …
Scott’s right in that the Founding Fathers did not envision a bunch of State Governors getting together to resist the Federal Government. But Bill is even more right in saying that what the Founding Fathers intended is not the situation we find ourselves in today. So although the Founders did not intend for States to stand up in that manner to the Federal Government, they did give us a tool perhaps inadvertently to resist an overbearing national government. A tool that it would be wise to employ judiciously with the goal of moving this nation back towards Constitutional Textualism.
There were plenty of Montana citizens who opposed dropping Fed highway money (I had one as a public school teacher).. But just enough of the go-to hell-Washington Montanans were there to support the MT Gov. Also, I think there were enough highway builders who were owed favors from the Feds (can you say graft & corruption?) so that Montana still got Interstate highway funds.
I was disappointed that Bill did not point out that the governors did actually try to take their power back at one point, and it resulted in a civil war. In the south, that war was historically considered a war for states’ rights. And yah, the states lost. We are still paying for it today.
Even without the RGA as a meeting place / sounding board; you would think that other Governors would see the positive that DeSantis and Abbot are getting from the right for fighting back and emulate them. I had higher hopes for Youngkin here is VA even if he is limited by a divided legislature.
Noem is OK, but has had a few missteps to the Woke / trans activists.
Others just don’t seem to want to get on board.
And what the heck ever happened to Nikki Haley? Is she waiting to see what happens with Trump and DeSantis to see if she wants to join either ticket?
This puzzles me a bit. Ron DeSantis is arguably the most popular governor in the US. Generally politics is a matter of doing whatever works to get you elected. DeSantis has found a way to do exactly what his constituents want which has made him very popular.
Which makes me wonder what the hold up is on the part of other Republican Governors. Are they believing polls that show them hanging on by their fingernails instead of just going ahead and doing what the majority really want? Are they afraid of being called racists and bigots for opposing Leftists chopping up kids and spreading actual racism? Could it be that those polls are a result of them not taking the same steps and adopting the same policies that DeSantis has been so successful with?
It’s curious to me that other governors are not looking at DeSantis and thinking “Hmm, maybe he’s onto something there.”
I guess I would posit the simple answer, most politicians are not that bright.
I have met several “high-ranking” pols, and I was impressed with the cognitive abilities of none of them.
They play the game of politics, and don’t know how to handle something outside the normal playbook.
It is why even “conservative” pols didn’t like The Donald. He didn’t play by the rules at all.
Also, all these pols have the same group of consultants who are likely telling them this ultimately won’t work for Abbot or DeSantis.
Interesting that I have not heard anyone talk about Abbot as a POTUS possibility.
Abbot’s disability checks a box, but he’s still a Christian, heteronormative, white male, all of which are anathema to any coexistence with Trump on a ticket.
While that is true, I am even talking about those who want DeSantis instead of Trump. It seems to be either Trump or DeSantis; rarely anybody else as top of ticket. And certainly not Abbott. Odd that I feel like the GOP has more depth, but it already seems to come down to 2, and really 1 if Trump decides to run.
I think Abbott isn’t as media savvy as DeSantis, for one thing. Abbott appears to me to just be focusing on the job of trying to be a good governor and a good Texan.
Abbott isn’t totally ignorant of media influence by any means. It was he who first started shipping illegals north to ‘sanctuary cities’.
It seems likely to me that Ron DeSantis saw this happening and said “Hey, what a great idea for a political public event!” … And shipped a bunch of illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. Which was a master stroke politically because while there was a lot of whining and snivelling about illegals sent to Washington D.C., New York and Chicago the Martha’s Vineyard ploy got a lot of media attention that lasted for days and really showed the wealthy Leftist elites for what they are.
Also there’s the fact that Abbott isn’t making a lot of noise on other issues besides illegal immigration. DeSantis stood up to Woke Disney, has passed laws and executive actions to curtail CRT and grooming, etc. DeSantis seems to take a broader approach to the culture wars than Abbott appears interested in doing.
So getting back to my original point — DeSantis did take a page from Abbott’s book and made very good use of it but I don’t see Abbott really taking a stand, at least not to the point where it gets a lot of media attention, on those other larger issues.
DeSantis therefore seems to me to be the only Republican Governor seriously applying the doctrine of “Hmm, maybe he’s onto something there.” on a significant scale.
Also, there may be health reasons why Abbott isn’t making any noises about a run for the Presidency.
I’d love to see a deep field of Republican governors following suit in their own states and making noises about a Presidential run. Not only would that advance the Conservative movement in many States, it would have serious effects on the Republican Platform too.
I think there are enough people that want the kinds of things advanced by Trump, DeSantis and Abbott to really drive a serious voter turnout in 2024. The time may be approaching for those people to finally wake up and get out and vote if they don’t want to lose the fruits of all their hard earned labor, their kids and their country to the Left.
Watched an interview with Youngkin over the weekend, Fox I think, and they asked him twice at the end about a possible run in 24. This was after he spent the interview praising DeSantis about his hurricane preparedness. His answer was he was focused on being the best Gov of VA he can in 2022.
I keep hearing we have a deep bench, but then I try to list them and only get a few names. I wonder if they are all just waiting on Trump to decide and then position themselves as his VP to boost their national brand.
DeSantis and Abbott (and a little Youngkin) seem to be the only ones who get a boost from MSM outlets.
I think that there’s lots of acceptable options on the right side of the aisle. My worry is that the Dems will go full “Idiocracy” (the movie) and go get some public icon with little brains and all hype to run against the Republican. (Like Biden, you say? No. I mean someone like Snoop Dogg. But he’s not dumb enough. Maybe Lebron. He’s already sold his soul to the dark side, taking money over morals in regard to China, the NBA, and unfettered socialism – despite winning big at capitalism currently.)
Or Oprah, or Moose Obama, etc. I think Hillary’s spent, so I hope they run her again but I doubt they will. She’s done nothing but dig her hole deeper since she lost to Trump.
I think you’re right that they will be looking for another dumb puppet though. It worked once and nothing succeeds like success.
Dem Chiks libin da hi life, now. Doin’ da Prez ting 2 much woik.
Yeah, I’m sure you’re right about that. It would be a shame for Moose to get elected to office and have to do the heavy lifting, though I’m sure she’ll play for all the flattery she can harvest short of actually having to do something. I really despise that woman, maybe it shows.
Oprah I don’t despise but I also have no respect for after her comments in support of BLM.
I honestly can’t think of a Democrat who they could run that would have any real chance so that’s why I mentioned those two.
I’m not saying that we have a deep bench, I’m saying I’d like to see a deep bench. I don’t think it’s all that deep right now.
If Trump intends to run he needs to announce now, earlier would have been better. Too many people are wasting too much time on waiting to see what he’s going to do. He’s fogging up the field the way he’s doing things.
Considering Trump’s personality I’m more than a little concerned that if he does run again it will be more a matter of he thinks getting elected again will vindicate himself more than anything else.
If Trump does run again he’s another four year President, not an eight year President who will be in office long enough to make a serious difference (like Reagan for instance).
That’s a double edged sword because if he picks the right running mate, NOT Mike Pence who I don’t see as charismatic enough to win, then we could theoretically end up with 12 consecutive years of a conservative in the White House. I like Mike Pence and wouldn’t mind seeing him as POTUS but I don’t think he can win.
There’s also the fact that if Trump runs he needs to pick a good, solid, Presidential class running mate that can take the reins of power and keep this nation from collapse if the Democrats are successful in removing him either from the race or the White House if he wins. I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that the Democrats will keep trying to take down Trump whether he runs or runs and wins. The precedent is already far too solid for them to give up on that sort of attack and they’re going to press it for all it’s worth either way.
If Trump doesn’t pick that kind of person, like DeSantis, it will be because he’s afraid of his VP overshadowing him. Then if the Democrats succeed in their attacks we will be left with nothing but ashes in our mouths.
The Democrat’s attacks certainly aren’t right and I’m not saying they are. I’m saying we need to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If the best we can get is Trump and a good, solid VP then that is still far better than the alternative.
So If Donald Trump intends to run and he’s not taking all this sort of thing into consideration he’s not doing anyone any favors but himself.
If Trump runs he’s going to be fighting the headwind of all the crap the Democrat Left has already painted him with. I know the Trump Cult doesn’t care about this but the Trump Cult isn’t really looking for what’s best for America they’re looking for what’s best for their little tin god Donald Trump.
So I have to question how effective Trump would be in another stint at the White House. The Left will continue to paint him with lies and scandals and while they might be lies and the scandals false we all know they can make that paint stick because they have the MSM behind them.
Someone like DeSantis or Abbot doesn’t have that handicap. That’s important because it worked for the Left to throw mud on Trump with lies and phoney scandals. This is one of those occasions where even if you think Trump is the last word in Presidential material you also have to think about what’s best for the country and weigh those two factors against each other. As I’ve said before and explained in detail, it does no good to be right if you’re dead right.
So right now we’re in a situation where Donald Trump, applying an old adage as is my wont; needs badly to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Because if he doesn’t do that we’re not going to see the deep bench we want to see in 2024.
Money handlers direct and sponsor what the governor is doing, but essentially support what the governor is NOT doing. Those who fund the govenor have the power of the DANE, as Bill said. Once you take it, they take you!
Mostly they are cowards-/collect the salary and gratuities, keep calm and carry on until it’s time to be re-elected.
It is amazing that an alliance of Republican governors seem to be unable or unwilling to use their power to resist the Deep state as it now exists in our country. Could we call it “A murder of crows” sitting in high places?
For me, I’m in Kari Lake’s corner. She is awesome. If she’s half as good as she sounds, Arizona will be in patriot hands. God Bless her!!