With Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis allegedly on the brink of throwing his hat into the ring for the Republican presidential nomination, it’s no surprise that the Democrat media are going after him. However, it is a little surprising that they’re attacking his wife, Casey DeSantis, for being too good as a political wife. After all, they sang a very different song back in 1992.

Politico’s Senior Staff Writer, Michael Kruse, put great effort into the article, entitled, The Casey DeSantis Problem: ‘His Greatest Asset and His Greatest Liability.’ The subtitle hammers the message home: “Ron DeSantis’ wife is going to play a very prominent role in his presidential campaign. Some of his supporters wonder if that’s an entirely good thing.”

The article is “generic modern media” in form, starting with an anecdote intended to show that Casey hates it when her husband has the limelight, while she doesn’t. Then it discusses the conventional political wisdom that she’s a “not so ‘secret weapon’” for a politician sometimes perceived (by the MSM) as awkward. (I’ve never noticed that.)

However, we’re told, problems loom. Casey is accused of isolating Ron from important political advisors. My reading of this accusation is that Casey protects Ron from those Republican consultants who consistently (and for a high fee) lead their customers/candidates to spectacular losses.

I found the article boring, and faded away after a few paragraphs. As I said, it’s a generic hit piece. If you want more information, you can read Red State’s Bonchie, who writes about the former Republicans, failed consultants, and Trump supporters upon whom Kruse relies for the article. I have a couple of different points to offer.

Image by Andrea Widburg.

First, I attended a small Ron DeSantis presentation a few weeks ago, at which both Ron and Casey DeSantis spoke. Both were impressive. (And no, I’m not endorsing him; I’m just commenting on what I saw.)

This was the first time I’d heard Casey speak because I usually read my news rather than watch it. Despite her elegant appearance and kittenish face, which make her look a bit doll-like, she has a commanding presence and a strong voice. She and her husband are obviously sympatico, each clearly respecting the other.

Casey is also intelligent. She told how, as her First Lady of Florida project, she looked at the state’s system for getting services to people experiencing poverty-related emergencies. She noted the overlapping agencies and the way in which, once sucked into the welfare maw, people never escaped. She also realized that there was a huge amount of available private charity but that it was a patchwork of services that were being underutilized. What Casey and her team did was to use the government, not to put people on welfare, but to connect people in need to local charities (often faith-based) that could help them.

Is the program as good as Casey said? I don’t know. How large was her role? I don’t know that either. I just know that she spoke very well about an intelligent-sounding program to tackle a vexing problem that government, somehow, never manages to solve. As I said, I was impressed.

Second, as I read the essay, I couldn’t help thinking back to 1992, when one of the Democrats’ strongest selling points for Bill Clinton, then a relatively obscure governor of a southern state, was his wife, Hillary. Those of us paying attention in 1992 vividly remember Bill Clinton boasting that, if they elected him, voters would get “two for the price of one.” Hillary was going to be co-president with him.

When Bill’s marital indiscretions leaked out in 1992, Bill went onto 60 Minutes to prevaricate (rather brilliantly) about his conduct. And at his side was his wife Hillary, who explained in her faux southern accent that she wasn’t a doormat, something she did in her inimitable abrasive, tactless style:

There was also Hillary’s famously dismissive statement about stay-at-home moms:

I remember that era well because, as a good Democrat, I was desperate for George H.W. Bush to fail in his bid for reelection. Twelve years of Republican control of the White House, I believed, was enough (never mind the peace and prosperity). We needed “one of us” in the White House.

And that’s why I remember the Democrat-led outrage heaped on those conservative troglodytes who failed to realize what an extraordinary blessing was being conferred on us with the promise that Hillary would be co-president with the man we elected. This was a duo, which was going to be way better than a single act.

That memory is why, in addition to finding the substance of Kruse’s piece silly and banal, I throw in the extra criticism that Democrats sure have come a long way, baby. They’ve gone from strongly supporting a powerful first wife in the White House to palpitating terror that an elected president might have a strong, accomplished wife who elegantly offsets his deficiencies.