Select Page

Trump Forces Launch Attack Ad on DeSantis

Trump Forces Launch Attack Ad on DeSantis

Make America Great Again, Inc. has launched the first negative ads of the 2024 presidential campaign.  This is yet another unprecedented action in an unprecedented presidential season.  It is not only early in the campaign season, but the television ad is directed at a person who is not an official candidate for President.

It is important to understand that Make America Great Again is not an official part of President Trump’s Campaign.  In fact, it contains a disclaimer stating that it is in no way associated with a candidate.  Under the bizarre campaign finance laws, Make America Great Again is legally barred from coordinating its activities with the Trump campaign.  It must operate completely independently – no input from the campaign, no discussions on strategy and content.

Independent expenditure operations are considered non-political.  They provide information and education for the benefit of the public.  That is why there is no mention of Trump – or any recommendation to support him.   But make no mistake … Make America Great Again is committed to the election of Trump.  While there is no coordination, those at Make America Great Again intuitively know what needs to be done.  They know their mission.

The folks at Make America Great Again has created the ad for only one reason – to hurt Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.  It is a clear indication that the Trump people see DeSantis as a serious threat.

It is a nasty ad – suggesting that DeSantis will take away people’s Social Security and Medicare.  It makes its case by citing a couple of technical votes in which the Florida Governor – as a congressman – voted against changes in Social Security and Medicare.  It misrepresents the facts by taking the votes out of context – a standard practice of negative independent expenditure committees.

To underscore the negative impression, the ad is in black and white – and features unflattering images of DeSantis, who just happens to be the most popular and successful Republican governor in America.

Many Americans do not know a lot about DeSantis.  He is in the early stages of crafting his national public image.  It appears that the Trump folks want to tarnish that image before America gets to know the real DeSantis.

The willingness to viciously attack any political figures who do not praise and agree with Trump on every issue – whether the hostile Democrats and biased media or Republican colleagues – is one of the worst characteristics of the Trump personality.  However, methinks it has been deployed too often against too many good Republicans to be effective in the future.  I can say with some certainty that you do not win friends in Florida – where I reside – by attacking DeSantis.

The presidential campaign season is off to an early and ugly start.  One can only imagine how bad it will be in the summer of 2024.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. frank stetson

    Is what you are saying is that Make America Great Again operates just like SOROS? Wow, interesting.

  2. frank stetson

    Did DeSantis just make concealed carry permit-less? No training require, no permit needed to buy a gun, just grab n go? And he calls it “Constitutional Carry?”

    Wonder if FL still loves him given close to 80% of Floridians do not want this law, DeSantis even signed it in behind closed doors.

    Like Medicare and Social Security which Larry says: DeSantis only did “a couple of technical votes in which the Florida Governor – as a congressman – voted against changes in Social Security and Medicare. It misrepresents the facts by taking the votes out of context – a standard practice of negative independent expenditure committees.” Check the wordsmithing: “technical votes,” “out of context,” all without the context why this should divert us from the fact DeSantis voted against Social Security and Medicare. What Larry is weasel-wording is that Desanctimonious voted to reduce program benefits but it didn’t count because the vote would never become law. He still said it: with his vote. Didn’t he?

    OH — so he didn’t mean what he voted because the vote didn’t mean anything? This is your precedent for President?

    In 2012, DeSantis said he would: “start to restructure the program in a way that’s going to be financially sustainable, both Social Security and Medicare.” That means either cuts in benefits, rising taxes, or both, probably both.

    In 2023, DeSanctimonious said: “Look, I have more seniors here than just about anyone as a percentage. You know, we’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans. I think that that’s pretty clear.” Clear as mud Ron. 2012 clear.

    It’s OK to change your mind. I think politicians changing minds is a great thing, But really, shouldn’t you explain the change? The reason you changed? The rationale for change? Without this information, I personally think 2012 DeSantis is right, and 2023 DeSantis is lying. He can’t be President from 2024-2032 without re-engineering Social Security OR it will crash a year or two thereafter. The point is if we listen to DeSantis, we can’t know what DeSanctimonious means about Social Security — he has two answers and some votes by him which contradict him. And, most often, he has moved to re-engineer Social Security including moving the age to 70 — that’s a draconian response. Until we know what he wants to do, DeSantis should not get your vote IF you care about SS.

    He does this a lot. Says one thing, then another, and then does what most liberals and moderate Democrats do not endorse.

    DeSantis previously said that he’d support open permitless carry of firearms because “if it’s concealed, it makes it easier for somebody to potentially do a crime.” He added that he wouldn’t veto a permitless concealed carry bill from his legislature if it didn’t have open carry.

    Now he just signed a bill that allows permitless concealed carry as legal while permitless open carry is still illegal.

    Apparently, you can’t believe any version of DeSanctimonious.

    Here’s the funny part. IF you are concealed carry, and decide you need that gun —- are you now illegally doing an open carry? Even funnier, he calls it “Constitutional Carry,” as if our forefathers thought concealed carry was a right. In colonial times, open carry was difficult for most given the gun size. 10 lb flintlocks under your coat? About 15% of all homes had a gun and many were not functional. Also, concealed carry was considered a trait of the brigand, the cur, a man who hides a weapon for an underhanded surprise attack. DeSanctimonious is aptly named. There is no concealed carry in the Constitution, never was. He said he would never do it, and then when it helped get votes on the national stage, he did it to Florida. Now you have easy access to guns and easier access to hide them as you go about your day. More access, more guns, everywhere, all the time —- what could go wrong with that?

    Sorry Larry, this guy needs some polish, he’s not ready for prime time yet. Keep him in FL where they love him.

    • Miles collins

      The framers of the Constitution didn’t intend for people to ask permission from the government to be armed. But know this. The laws concerning forbidden people will remain. South Carolina will be next.

      • frank stetson

        “The framers of the Constitution didn’t intend for people to ask permission from the government to be armed.” Really? Is that why the framers of the Constitution intended to specify the government’s acknowledgement of the people’s permission, aka right, to bear arms? Sure sounds like the framers intended to give permission; was no one asking?

        “The laws concerning forbidden people will remain. South Carolina will be next” Can you clarify, we need a laugh. forbidden people, SC, sounds like you live there, can’t wait until you decipher this one

        • Tom

          LOL Frank, I agree. Maybe Mike collins will be at the top of the “Forbidden People List”. :>) Lets just be honest here, whether Dem or GOP or Indep, I think we all can agree that Mike collins gives new and blinding reason why the morning after pill should stay legal and very accessible!!! :>)

          • frank stetson

            It’s Miles, not Mike Tom. Miles is the Irish, of which I am gathering Collins is too, that means: “servant.”

            Servant Collins is just a frustrated little man who demeans minorities to raise himself up. Now, he’s a big man in the virtual world. Toughest set of pixels you will ever meet.

        • Tom

          Yes, sorry, I meant Miles. Thanks for the correction! 🙂

      • Wes kussmaul

        Wasn’t there something about a well-ordered militia?
        Or have we chosen to forget half the wording of the amendment?

  3. Tom

    Larry, I always enjoy your posts and find them engaging. And there’s nothing better than reading Frank’s responses which often are better than the original post. One of the things I like to do most is to analyze you a bit. And this post surely meets all expectations for political filters.

    Larry, you wrote, “…whether the hostile Democrats and biased media or Republican colleagues”. Wow!

    1) You cannot or will not be nice to Democrats at all, even on neutral issues. Are there no hostile Republicans towards Trump? Yet you claim to be unbiased.

    2) In your Trump-like rant against me for criticizing your recent disingenuous use of the word “never” you mentioned your disdain at how I always say I am an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. My response back was that I say that to 1) Differentiate myself from GOP And Dems. 2) I often say it because you never give Independents any mention in your writings. And once again, you did just that. No mention of independents, we are totally ignored by you – yet we are the largest voting block, and will decide this 2024 election. And the funny thing is, those commercials you are mentioning seem to be targeting Independent voters!!! Someone is attempting to herd Independents toward Trump because they feel Trump is a more vulnerable candidate – and I agree, he is.

    With regard to the commercials themselves, it really does not matter to most of us Independents/Unaffiliated voters who is funding them, George Soros or Peter Thiel because we are not into party loyalty, Trump loyalty or any sort of legacy loyalty. We will vote on the issues. And most of us will be patient to wait and listen to what the candidates actually say, not what rich people funded commercials say. We will examine their voting record on issues. I think you will find that most Independents/Unaffiliated voters are: 1) For a process that controls and at minimum lets police know where the guns are, so we would not be in favor of no permitting – but you will find Independents split on this the most. 2) We are not for SS or Medicare cuts or privatizing, but are for sensible reforms which I have mentioned in previous posts. 3) We are for integrity in government, do what you say and say what you do. We are repulsed by recent TN legislature events, WI GOP super majority activities, repulsed by discrimination and reverse discrimination, not in favor of racially motivated tax payer cash payouts for historical wrongs but are in favor of institutional considerations such as tuition reductions to help level the field, and we are very repulsed at all of the money spent on all of these investigations that in the end nothing happens. 4) Most of us are for Trump being held accountable to the law even if GOP does not think its a good case. We would rather still see many of his activities particularly in the area of tax fraud, books cooking, unreported campaign funding, classified document handling, impeding investigations all prosecuted, and barred from office forever if convicted. It is a matter of showing a previous president that he or she is not above the law and will be prosecuted once they are out of office. 5) We support our efforts to supply Ukraine. 6) Many of us are (but we are split on this) for banning assault rifles and large magazines, some like me, actually would prefer not banning the rifles but controlling ammunition in several ways that I have already discussed like psychological testing for ammo permits, return of empty shell casings for new shells, tracking of ammunition purchased and limits if casings are not returned, etc. We already have the system in place, its a matter of employing people to get the job done. 7) We are for community safety and funding police and properly training them, even hiring some social workers to de-escalate situations. And we are for a uniform code for assessing compliance of police departments to a standard code, as well as tracking police firings to ensure they simply do not go to another precinct and wreak havoc. 8) Most of us are for sensible abortion restrictions and do not favor what GOP has been doing in some states like TX. 9) We are against institutional racism, and most of us are against woke agenda as it pertains to demonizing one race over another, but we would like the real history taught in a neutral and informative manner under the flag of continuous improvement that leads to as Lincoln said, “a more perfect union”, and I would add harmonious. I guess you could say we are rather moderate thinking individuals who hate that the party extremes are running the show these days.

    These are the kinds of things we will be watching for. For now, if the rich guys want to waste their money, let them. Its a free country. Their money does help employ people and gives you something to write about. And that’s a good thing.

  4. frank stetson

    DeSantis, who just happens to be the most popular and successful Republican governor in America.”

    Morning Consult has him as number 7 out of 10.

    DeSantis did not make The Hill’s top slot either.

    Think most use Morning Consult, except Larry, who believes something completely different as to popularity. In terms of “most successful,” one can only hazard where Larry constructed that improbability from.

    “Taking votes out of context” is an interesting concept. I am just not sure how one does that and Larry ain’t saying except that it’s so and it means something. What Larry is weasel wording is that this was not law, it was a non-binding vote, and therefore Larry is trying to say it does not matter what Ron means, what matter is what he does. As I have shown, what he says is not what he does, often he does the exact opposite. Some would say that makes him a liar and a cad.

    Fact is he’s green when it comes to the national stage. He’s green when it comes to optics favoring form over function. And he’s green when it comes to results favoring the symbolic over actual results. Thus, as a lawmaker, he votes for things that are not laws or will make laws, and then disavows that he even meant the symbolism. As a governor, he takes state funds to make national statements, again, with symbolism, not laws, not tangible results, and then disavows that he’s even running for national office.

    Grab those peanuts, enjoy the show, have PBP pundits debate at fill, let the REPUBLICAN mud wrestling continue!