#959: Here Comes Mr. Jordan

Yes, I know: the title of this piece should, in reality, be There Goes” (not “Here Comes”) Mr. Jordan. Truth to tell, when I first started mulling over this week’s op-ed, Ohio Rep. “Gym” Jordan יש"ו  (a Hebrew acronym pronounced y’mach sh’mo v’zikro and meaning “may his name and memory be blotted out” . . . in modern Latin. it’s Damnatio memoriae, “condemnation of memory”), was still in the race for Speaker of the House. The House went through 3 votes this past week, with Gym, who could afford having no more than 4 of his Republican colleagues voting against him if  he were to have any hope of snaring the gavel.  As things turned out, he kept losing more Republican votes in each go-round until by vote number three, he managed to lose the confidence - if not affection - of fully 25 of his colleagues.  In so doing, Mr. Jordan managed to enter the history books by losing more votes from his own party than any Speaker candidate in more than 100 years. And mind you, all this occurred despite Mr. Jordan having received the public endorsement of the FPOTUS, Donald J. Trump.

So what’s this Here Comes Mr. Jordan all about?  Well, first and foremost, it’s the title of a sparkling 1941 Columbia comedy/fantasy/romance starring Robert Montgomery as boxer Joe Pendleton (aka “The Flying Pug) who, flying off to his next bout, appears to have died when his plane crashes while en route.  Joe’s soul is retrieved by 7013 (played by Edward Everett Horton), an officious angel who assumed that Joe could not have survived the crash. Joe's manager, Max "Pop" Corkle (James Gleason), has his body cremated. In the afterlife, the records show that the kind-hearted Joe’s death was a mistake; he was supposed to live for another 50 years. 7013’s superior, Mr. Jordan (Claude Rains) , confirms this, but since there is no more body, Joe will have to take over a newly dead corpse. Jordan explains that a body is just something that is worn, like an overcoat; inside, Joe will still be himself. Joe insists that it be someone in good physical shape, because he wants to continue his boxing career.

After Joe turns down several "candidates", Jordan takes him to see the body of a crooked, extremely wealthy banker and investor named Bruce Farnsworth, who has just been drugged and drowned in a bathtub by his wife and his secretary. Joe is reluctant to take over a life so unlike his previous one, but eventually changes his mind and agrees to take over Farnsworth's body.  There’s a lot more to the story including a murder mystery, Joe’s return to the boxing ring and Joe’s beloved saxophone. Perhaps you may want to see it for yourself. (BTW, Here Comes Mr. Jordan received Academy Award nominations for best picture, best director best actor, and best supporting actor and won for best screenplay and best story.)  

In truth then, this essay would have been better served had it been entitled There Goes Mr. Jordan, for undoubtedly Gym Jordan’s career on Capitol Hill is, from this point on, going to be but a wisp of what it was a mere 10 days ago. Never again will he even dream of scaling any Congressional heights. The reasons for his embarrassing defeat (for which sane people should give thanks) are many-fold. Most importantly, during his 16 years in the House, Congress has yet to pass a single bill Gym Jordan wrote. Then too, he one of the most disliked people on Capitol Hill; to his colleagues, he is nothing more than a bully without a single guiding principle to his name. And oh yes, he is a terrible - and I mean lackluster to the max - fundraiser . . . a prime responsibility for any Speaker. 

Make no mistake  about it: now that Jordan has been hurled onto the trash heap of American political history, Congress - and America’s very future - are in peril.  Without a properly elected Speaker, Congress (meaning both the House and Senate) are incapable of addressing - let alone seriously dealing with - America’s most pressing issues . . . such as funding wars in both Israel and Ukraine, keeping the government from shutting down, and virtually anything that deals with appropriations. Oh  sure, the Republicans and their 4-vote “majority” can continue holding hearings on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the possible impeachment of the POTUS . . . which in the real world  amount to far, far less than a hill of political beans.

 At the moment, there are upwards of 9 Congressional Republicans being considered for the speakership:

• Tom Emmer (Minnesota)

• Austin Scott (Georgia)

• Byron Donalds (Florida)

• Kevin Hern (Oklahoma)

• Jody C. Arrington (Texas)

• Jack Bergman (Michigan)

• MIke Johnson (Louisiana)

• Pete Sessions (Texas)

• Dan Meuser (Pennsylvania
  

A brief look through the nine’s websites will show that all are Trump acolytes, that 7 of the 9 (with the exception of Scott and Emmer) voted against accepting Joe Biden’s victory in the 2022 presidential election. All, with the exception of Mr. Donalds of Florida, are White males, are pro-gun, anti-WOKE and, when it comes to the FPOTUS, absolutely spineless. Several are leaders of the “Freedom Caucus,” founded by the aforementioned Jim Jordan, and the majority of whom are against working together with Democrats on virtually anything and everything.

In the 3 votes for Speaker of the House over the past week, the person claiming the greatest number of votes was, not surprisingly, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. This is not to say that he will ever become Speaker in a House controlled (even by 4 votes) by Republicans, but rather that he leads a totally unified party. It is becoming abundantly clear with each passing day that Jeffries’ Democrats are not only speaking with one voice, but that they actually have an agreed-upon political platform. This is beginning to sink in on the Republican members of the House who, by comparison to their Democratic colleagues, are known for what they are against - like Social Security, Medicare, Student Loan Forgiveness, Covid-19 vaccines, gun safety measures and aid to Israel and the Ukraine, than what they are for: tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy, the banning of books in public school libraries, anti-immigrant legislation, and turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism. And for what?  Certainly not for the purpose of “Making America Great Again.”  With each passing week and each dropped pass, it seems that what the majority of Republicans are after is maintaining good standing with their party leader, the FPOTUS and continuing to be recipients of the toxic crumbs he doles out for obedience at best, silence at worst. 

Needless to say, this is looking pretty damn embarrassing for the Republicans and does not bode well for 2024. Not that long ago, The COP stood for smaller government, lower taxes and greater individual liberty. Sort of like the Republicanism of the late actor Robert Montgomery, the star of “Here Comes Mr. Jordan.” Montgomery, (1904-1981), the well-born son of a corporate executive, quit Hollywood when Dwight Eisenhower asked him to join his administration in order to become his political "image consultant." He thus created a new position in the world of politics. (BTW: Political historians have often speculated that had Montgomery been Richard Nixon’s media consultant in 1960, JFK would never have been elected.)  It is interesting to speculate precisely which party Montgomery (the father of Elizabeth, the future star of “Bewitched”) would have assisted in the age of Donald Trump, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz et al. One gets the feeling that even a star of his magnitude couldn’t have done a damned thing.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#938: Four Questions #🟦 (Copy)

It’s hard for the approximately fifteen to twenty percent of us - like readers of this blog - who are deeply involved in following “the chess game of politics” to believe - let alone grok - that an astounding 80%-85% of the American public follow it anywhere between “casually and not at all.” The New York Times’ editorial board refers to this as the “attention divide.” According to an astute - though deeply disturbing - editorial published back in October of 2022: “Most Americans view politics as two camps bickering endlessly and fruitlessly over unimportant issues.” If this is true - and I for one have no reason to gainsay their finding - is it any wonder that people like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are being taken seriously as presidential contenders; that more and more state legislatures have passed laws permitting the banning of books in public schools; that at least 14 supermajority Republican state legislatures have passed laws banning drag shows; and that despite more than 60% of those polled supporting a woman’s right to choose, more than 2 dozen state legislatures have already enacted laws banning the medical procedure?.

The precipice at which the American political process - and indeed, Democracy itself - currently lurches, has as much to do with the mega-billions now flooding the undertaking as the quality of its practitioners (at least on one side of the aisle), and the dumbing-down of its content. It’s not that the issues are too complex for the average citizen to follow; it’s more that the average citizen doesn’t feel they have any skin in the game. They don’t know what or whom to believe, and haven’t the slightest idea of what questions to ask of those soliciting their vote. For the 80%-85% who, in the words of the Times’ editorial, follow politics “casually, if not at all,” they can’t tell you why they support candidate X over candidate Y, except for the fact that the former is not the latter. If anyone contemplating suggesting that these folks are, in reality, supporting people who really don’t care a whit about their plight or needs, expect a concussion; this is the typical result of banging one’s head against a brick wall.

I for one long for the day when citizen voters can state positive reasons for supporting candidate X over candidate Y . . . instead of hearing “Well, at least he/she isn’t the other guy/gal.” Perhaps part of the problem is that neither citizens nor members of the professional press ever ask the right questions in such a way as to elicit a response . . . or make the pol at the mike come off as a first-class know-nothing.

Here are 4 questions that should be asked of every candidate at every press gathering or conference:

1. “According to almost every every recent poll - including - Fox News - a clear majority of the American public favors enacting a ban on assault weapons. While 45 percent of those surveyed said they would encourage more citizens to carry guns to defend against attackers, 61 percent said they favored banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. Where do you stand on this issue, and how would you vote on any form of sensible laws concerning lethal weapons in the hands of citizens? And by the way, how much money did you receive from the National Rifle Association in the last election cycle?”

2. “A recent survey found that nearly 60% of registered voters prefer political candidates who will take action on climate change — including more than a quarter of Republicans. Do you see this as a major issue affecting the future of the planet? And if not, why not? How much money did you receive from the oil and gas industry in the last election cycle?

3. Many political analysts have suggested that the Democrats’ surprisingly strong performance in the 2022 midterm elections — which were held about five months after the Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Roe V Wade— stemmed partly from public dissatisfaction with the justices’ ruling. And there’s evidence that Democratic voters in particular were energized to vote because of the change in abortion policy. In recent polling nearly three quarters of adults (74%) and 79% of reproductive age women say that obtaining an abortion should be a personal choice rather than regulated by law. Where do you stand on the issue of a woman’s right to choose? Will you vote to fine and/or imprison women who receive abortions and/or their physicians who perform them? At what age will you vote to cut off abortions?

4. A recent USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds a majority of Americans are inclined to see the word “woke” as a positive attribute, not a negative one. And yet, Republican presidential hopefuls are vowing to wage a war on "woke.” According to this poll, a 56%-39%, majority, say 'woke' means being aware of social injustice, not being overly politically correct. Republican politicians and voters alike have differing definitions of wokeism — and some struggle to define it at all. The rallying cry has recently been used to denounce everything from climate change policies and socially responsible investing to transgender rights, critical race theory, which books must be removed from library shelves in public schools, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Please explain your definition of “woke,” and justify how legislating so many aspects of people’s lives, education, relationships and individual choices is consistent with the classical Republican agenda of smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

At this point in time, it is more than evident that the gap between Democrats and Republicans is of Grand Canyon proportions. How so? Well, agree or disagree with them, Democrats have a pretty obvious ethical and legislative vision upon which to run. They have pretty clear-cut strategy based on both a a set of ethical principles - such as the moral trinity of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion and the furtherance of Democratic values - and concrete political goals such as saving planet Earth for future generations, keeping assault weapons out of the hands of everyone save members of the military, supporting our allies and changing tax laws so that the wealthiest individuals and corporations pay what used to be called “their fair share.” These are all things which can be given expression without having to resort to fear and name-calling. Ask the four questions - or five or six or more - and then demand answers.

On the other side of the political gap, it seems there are no answers to the basic questions - just rhetoric and buzz-terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist,” “Woke,” “anti-religion,” and a laundry list of villains like “George Soros,” “Adam Schiff,” “LGBTQIA+” and pejorative nicknames (“Brandon,” “Sleepy Joe,” and “Pocahontas.”(  Of course, to those of us who love the history of political nicknames, these show little wit and even less tact. Take for example a couple of the best: “Martin Van Ruin” (after America’s 8th president, Martin Van Buren . . . given that nickname after presiding over the “Panic of 1837”); “Rutherfraud” (America’s 19th chief executive, Rutherford B. Hayes who, despite losing the popular vote in the election of 1876 to Samuel Tilden, still managed to win the Electoral College); and “Slick Willie” (obviously Bill Clinton).

I urge all lovers of Democracy and fearers of Führers - whether journalists or just plain citizens - to dig in and ask the four questions at every press conference, town-hall meeting and Passover seder, and not give up until you hear some answers.  And if the questions are avoided or turned into attacks on the other side, remember to ask the best, most obvious follow-up question of all: “Why won’t you answer the question he/she just asked you?”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone    #🟦

A Tale Told by an Idiot . . . Signifying Nothing

Nearly 60 years ago, “our crowd” of academically enriched students at Robert A. Millikan Junior High School (which as of February 8 of this year was renamed “Louis Armstrong Middle School”), flocked to a year-long elective class called, simply, “Reading Enrichment.” This class was taught by Edward Blakely, one of the most literate people we would ever know. His class was both brilliant and controversial, and made many demands upon us . . . like reading, reading, reading, writing, writing, writing. thinking, thinking, thinking, and memorizing, memorizing, memorizing. Part Renaissance man, part martinet, under Mr. Blakely’s entrancing guidance, we delved deeply into some of the world’s greatest, most noteworthy and censorable literature of all time. (n.b. It is rather doubtful that here, in Ron DeSantis’ Florida c. 2022, that a majority of the books, plays and essays we were assigned would remain on library bookshelves, let alone be taught in what today is referred to as a middle school.)

Even after so many, many years, I can still picture the students in that wonderful class: Gottlieb, Halpert, Korinblith, Miller, Saltzman, Sands, Scharf, Wilson, Wald, and yours truly. (Alan: any names I may have forgotten, please clue me . . . I, like you, am afflicted with junior moments). Even more importantly, many of us can still recite from memory passages of the novels, plays and essays our beloved teacher assigned us. Mr. Blakley was a galaxy-class instructor who introduced us to the joys and intricacies of such works and writers as:

• Aristophanes (Lysistrata), a bawdy anti-war comedy, wherein the title character, a strong as nails woman, convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate a peace;

• Beowulf, an epic 8th century old English poem which tells the story of the Scandinavian hero Beowulf, who gains fame as a young man by vanquishing the monster Grendel and Grendel's mother, thus becoming king;

• Boccaccio (The Decameron, also known as “The Human Comedy”) which is a series of 100 short tales told by 7 young men and 3 young women during a ten-day period in which they are quarantined due to a pandemic;

• Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales), a so-called “frame story” (a narrative that frames or surrounds another story or set of stories), in which the framing device is used for the collection of stories told by 30 people on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas Becket in Canterbury, Kent;

• Charles Dickens (Great Expectations), likely the great English novel of all time, and

• William Shakespeare’s, Macbeth, in which Three witches tell the Scottish general Macbeth that he will rise to become King of Scotland. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth kills the king (Duncan), becomes the new king, and kills more people out of sheer paranoia. Civil war erupts to overthrow Macbeth, resulting in more death. Seventeen years after killing King Duncan, Malcolm Canmore, (the son of King Duncan) in turn murders Macbeth.

Macbeth is indeed, a most grisly play in 5 acts; it puts one of the most psychologically flawed (if not THE most psychologically flawed) characters in all classic literature right up there on center stage. It is also a deeply political work, much like Lysistrata, Beowulf, Great Expectations, and virtually every work Mr. Blakely assigned our class. And by “political,” I mean far more than the modern definition of “relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.” Going way back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, they saw politics as being equal parts art, science, and strategy . . . a far cry from where we are today.

So what does all this “remembrance of things past” (not to be confused with Marcel Proust’s massive 7-volume novel of the same name [À la recherche du temps perdu]? Isn’t this a mostly political blog? And partisan politics at that?

Well, it is. With all the ink and hot air still accruing to our FPOTUS - especially in light of his recent announcement that he is once again running for the nation’s highest office - I find myself remembering the many, many months we spent reading, learning. contemplating and memorizing under the tutelage of Mr. Blakely . . . especially Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Or to be painfully precise, Act 5, Scene 5. lines 19-28. Tell me if you sense an eerie pre-prescience in this famous soliloquy. What is frequently forgotten is that before launching into his brief, dispirited downer, Seyton, Macbeth’s chief servant, informs him The Queen, my Lord, is dead. Macbeth responds not with grief for his mate, nor with tears staining his face , but with an oft-forgotten line: She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word.

It is only then that he launches into the meditation memorized and analyzed by oh so many over the past 400 years:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I’ve listened to literally dozens of great actors (Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Patrick Stewart, Baron Olivier and Sir Ian McKellen, among others) pronounce these words. To my way of thinking, only Sir Ian seems to have gotten it right . . . putting the first “tomorrow” as the end of the sentence which preceded it. In other words, it should be read She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word TOMORROW.

Lady Macbeth’s death prompts Macbeth to reflect upon the futility of all of his actions: his ‘overweening ambition’, which had spurred him on to commit murder after murder (including that of King Duncan, no less) and take the kingdom for himself. It has all been for nothing; now he is truly alone, with most of the lords rallying to Macduff, and standing foursquarely against him.

Although not nearly so self-aware as Shakespeare’s fictional King, Donald Trump is every bit as avaricious and power mad as the Scottish thane-cum monarch. But listening to and watching him over the past several weeks, he finally seems, eerily, a bit more like Macbeth: beginning to grasp that much of what he has accomplished is, in the end of all his tomorrows, a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. I find myself wondering if, like the former Thane of Glammis and Thane of Cawdor, he is beginning to realize that all his mendacious verbiage has finally amounted to little more than A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I have to wonder precisely what - or who - Donald Trump sees when he looks into his gilt mirror: a leader whose power and greatness are inspired by God above, or "a poor player who struts his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. Even Macbeth came to recognize that he was alone . . . that all his troops, advisors and acolytes had stormed out in droves, leaving him with only his blindly loyal attendant Seyton (could this be Shakespeare’s play on the name Satan?); a single “yes-man” to stand by his side to face his ultimate fate. Who does Donald Trump have left? Madison Cawthorn? Matt Gaetz? Mike “My Pillow” Lindell? Senator Tommy Tuberville? Former California Rep. Devin Nunes? Indeed, what he is left with is little more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I do not in the least feel sorry for Donald Trump. I do feel both deeply angry and greatly concerned for what he has forced upon the American future. As a politically active member of a generation often accused of being pro-Communist and anti-American, I am stupefied by just how much the tables have turned. Those who accused us of being in league with drugs and the devil more than a half-century ago, are now the true anti-patriots; those who once considered themselves the most pro-American, are now the ones who could most easily destroy the American ideals of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Mr. Blakely, it turns out, was oh so wise to teach us everything he knew about Macbeth. Without knowing it, he was preparing us for the future. Turns out, his desire to teach was matched by our need to learn . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

How Low Can You Go?

Although DeSantis, Abbott & Ducey may sound like the name of a high-tone law firm, it is of course, anything but. The three principals are, the MAGA-Republican governors of, respectively, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. They pretty much stand together on the major political issues of the day (they are all vehemently pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and anti-immigrant), and each harbors thoughts about someday running for POTUS. And oh yes, all three find the greatest amount of political comfort among the most ardent followers of Donald Trump. The mere contemplation of the lengths the three are willing to go in order to impress this growing gaggle of anti-(small d) democrats, is enough to make a good night’s sleep next to impossible.

Day-by-day, hour-by-hour, the story about how the three - especially Florida’s DeSantis, the man who seeks to out-Trump Trump - have, through trickery, been transporting mostly Venezuelan migrants to places like Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, and Vice President Harris’ own front yard in Washington, D.C., it grows and grows. The three have become exporters of migrant misery in order to put America’s border policy woes back on the front burner, thus reinvigorating the MAGA-Republican’s political playbook just in time for the 2022 midterm elections. The obvious political strategy is that when you haven’t got a positive platform to run on, stick to what you do best: label everyone on the other side of the political fence “radical libs,” “socialists” or “anti-Americans” and oh yes, don’t forget to blame the nation’s many intractable woes on “illegal aliens.”

Besides being what The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols correctly called “a sadistic political stunt,” DeSantis’ ploy could well get him indicted . . . which likely wouldn’t bother his political followers one iota. For a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale and earned a juris doctor at Harvard, DeSantis loves coming across to his fan base as the reincarnation of “Lonesome Rhodes,” the raucous hayseed turned right-wing demagogue, played to haunting perfection by newcomer Andy Griffith in the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd.” In the film, “Lonesome,” who on mic or before the television camera regularly proclaims things like “The family that prays together, stays together,” is anything but a Bible-toting Christian. In reality, he is a truly mean-spirited miscreant who considers his adoring fans to be nothing more than cretinous fools and idiots. Eventually, he gets his comeuppance when Marcia Jeffries (marvelously played by Patricia Neal), the woman who made him a super-star, leaves the microphone on at the end of a broadcast, thus ruining Lonesome’s career when he is finally unmasked as a total fraud; a man motivated only by money and his own egotistical thirst for power.

In chartering 2 planes to take upwards of 50 Venezuelan asylees from Texas (not Florida as was at first mistakenly assumed) up North to Martha’s Vineyard, DeSantis found himself quickly becoming the butt of late-night jokes, inquiries into the legality of what he had done, and even the wrath of the FPOTUS. Mind you, Donald Trump’s outrage had nothing to do with moral revulsion at his protege’s using human beings as unsuspecting pawns for a political attack. Instead, Trump has been telling allies and confidants that he’s outraged that DeSantis seems to think he’s allowed to steal the ex-president’s mantle as both media star, and undocumented-immigrant-basher-in-chief. Trump and his advisors are smart enough to realize that DeSantis’ ploy is intended to be a shot across the bow of the Former President’s plans for running in 2024, and intend to do something about it.  What that “something” is, is unknown, considering just how full to overflowing Trump’s political dance card is these days.

As much as other Republicans may think poorly of just how low DeSantis has sunk, few - if indeed any - have gone public with their thoughts and/or condemnation. It is once again pointing out the moral and political bankruptcy of just about every Republican within range of a camera. Need an example? Here’s Texas Senator Ted Cruz - who like the highly-educated DeSantis is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, proclaiming that the law is "clear" and a citizen could "easily be arrested" for moving migrants from one state to another, and yet still stating that he supports the Republican governors’ doing it: "I commend Greg Abbott for sending the immigrants to these blue cities, I commend Ron DeSantis for doing so, and they need to do more," Cruz said. "Tomorrow, Martha's Vineyard needs a hundred. The next day they need two hundred. The next day they need a thousand," he concluded. Got that? Harvard should rescind his law degree!

So far as I know, about-to-become-former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is the sole Republican to utter so much as a single syllable against the likes of DeSantis, Abbott and Ducey. Have they no sense of what is moral, ethical or legal? Are they so fearful of losing the support of Donald Trump or the MAGA-Republican base as to remain mute in the face of gross inhumanity, not to mention the most vile form of  mendacity?

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell − who's married to an immigrant, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao − acknowledged at a news conference ". . . there's been a good deal of talk about what some of the governors have done to transport illegal immigrants up to other parts of the country. I personally thought it was a good idea. If you added up all of the [immigrants] who've been taken to Chicago or Washington or Martha's Vineyard, it would be fewer than people down in Texas have to deal with on a daily basis."

If there is any justice left in America, Ron DeSantis should be in a world of legal - not to mention moral and ethical - jeopardy. There are questions aplenty to be asked and investigated:

• About DeSantis’ use of federal COVID-19 dollars to fund his Martha’s Vineyard (and now Delaware) stunt;

• About the relationship between the DeSantis-for Governor campaign and Vertol Systems, a Destin, Florida-based company which is a major Republican contributor, that was paid more than $615,000 to charter the two planes which flew the 50 migrants (lawfully awaiting their asylum hearings) from Texas (not Florida) to Massachusetts. (n.b.: The Vertol Systems website link is suddenly no longer operable.)

• About whether or not DeSantis conned the migrants into signing consent documents holding both him and the State of Florida harmless from any legal action.  (As a medical ethicist, I can tell you that unless an informed consent document is written so that anyone capable of reading can understand it, it simply is not legal.  It also has to be written in the language which the subject is most literate.) 

Bexar County (Texas) Sheriff Javier Salazar has launched a criminal investigation into DeSantis’ cruel stunt. The decision comes on the heels of immigration rights groups and Democrats accusing Republicans of exploiting vulnerable migrants for political points by promising them jobs and housing, only to fly them to an island off the coast of Massachusetts that was not warned people needing help were coming.

Salazar, sheriff for the county where San Antonio is located, said it is too early in the investigation to name suspects or know what laws were broken. But he said he is talking to an attorney representing some of the migrants who have already filed a class-action suit and trying to figure out what charges should be made and against whom.

“We want to know what was promised to them. What, if anything, did they sign? Did they understand the document that was put in front of them if they signed something? Or was this strictly a predatory measure?” Salazar said.

For all his efforts, it would appear that Ron DeSantis has wound up being on the wrong side of Donald Trump. According to a report from Rolling Stone, Trump felt DeSantis not only stole his thunder, but also his idea to ship illegal migrants into heavily Democratic areas of the country. Rolling Stone writers Aswin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley reported they spoke to two people in Trump’s orbit in the days after the migrants were flown to the ritzy resort island:

Trump has fumed over all the praise DeSantis’ action has been receiving in influential conservative circles lately - such as on right-wing media like Fox News - and has privately accused DeSantis of doing this largely to generate a 2024 polling boost for himself among GOP voters.

It seems to me that Ron DeSantis’ sights had better be on November’s gubernatorial race before he starts drooling over 2024; goodness knows how many Florida Hispanic voters are going to either vote for Democrat Charlie Crist or simply stay away from the polls, as a means for expressing their anger and outrage at the man who used to be called Trump’s ‘Mini-Me.’

Time and again, “Rambo” DeSantis has proven that he will do or say anything that can put him at the top of the MAGA-Republican list of favorites. He may be well-educated, but clearly is none too smart . . . and has an utter lack of scruples.

To paraphrase the old Chubby Checker song:

Every Rambo boy and girl
All around the Rambo world
Gonna do the Rambo rock
All around the Rambo crock

Ron be Rambo, Ron be thick
Ron go unda Rambo shtick
All around the Rambo rock
Hey, let's do the Rambo crock

Rambo lower now
Rambo lower now
How low can you go?

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone