Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Newt now well ahead of Mitt in Florida and South Carolina. Are we approaching "inevitability" territory?


Whether or not Newt won Saturday's debate, though he probably did, one thing is clear: He's opening such a significant lead in the key early primary/caucus states, New Hampshire excepted (and even there he's closing in on Romney), that there may be nothing that can stop him from winning the GOP presidential nomination. Indeed, given that winning the marathon that is the presidential primaries is to a great extent about momentum, we may be close to having to use the word inevitable when describing Newt's prospects for victory.

Because if he wins Iowa, does well in New Hampshire (say, a strong second to Romney), and then breezes to big wins in South Carolina and Florida, where he's currently well ahead of Romney in the polls... well, that may well be that.

Before you know it, we'll have to talk seriously about possible running mates for Newt.

Happy, Republicans?

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Cain's support would go to Gingrich


Public Policy Polling (PPP) has just gone into the field in Florida and Montana, and early indications are that New Gingrich is likely going to have a double-digit lead in both states. The polling firm also says that his support has not peaked.

Significantly, PPP indicates that with Herman Cain perhaps poised to drop out of the race, Gingrich's surge should continue for a while, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot, which is a big assumption.

A key piece of information from their polling is that Cain supporters love Newt and hate Mitt:

Our last national survey found that Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters was 73/21. Meanwhile Romney's was 33/55. That's the same basic trend we've seen in every Republican primary poll we've done in the month of November. On average in 7 polls we've done this month Gingrich's favorability with Cain voters is 69/22. Romney's average is 31/57. In other words Gingrich's net favorability is 73 points better with Cain supporters than Romney's.

This gets us into that all-important second choice dynamic so essential in nomination battles. Not only is Romney stuck at fairly mediocre levels of support, but his opportunity for growth, once lesser candidates either bail out or become less viable, is limited.

Gingrich is coming on anyway, and if Cain goes away Newt will get much of that support.

I know many of us have been beating this point to death for months, but this Republican nomination race is not political business-as-usual. Voter preference does not appear to be motivated by a rational calculation of who can best take on Obama. The level of ideological fervor in this election may mean that many right-wing voters will be incapable of supporting a relative centrist like Romney.

And, after shopping around for months, they could be coming around to Gingrich, a candidate they believe to be consistently on the right who doesn't misspeak every second time he opens his mouth.

Once again, we are seeing evidence that Romney could be in more trouble than most of us thought.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gingrich surges in Florida


In Florida, a new poll from The Florida Times-Union shows Gingrich outpacing the Republican presidential field in that state with 41% support. Mitt Romney is well back with 17%:

Newt Gingrich is the current favorite in Florida's Jan. 31 Republican presidential primary, picking up supporters who fled Herman Cain to claim 41 percent in a poll conducted Tuesday night for The Florida Times-Union.

Gingrich has as much support as the next four candidates combined in the telephone survey of 513 registered voters who say they're likely to cast ballots in the primary. The poll, conducted by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research, has a margin of error of 4 percent.

As I've noted, Cain's loss is Gingrich's gain. And Romney continues to stumble.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Florida ignores the rules to have an earlier GOP primary


Here's an interesting point of information reported by CNN yesterday:

Florida is now expected to hold its primary on the last day in January, a move likely to throw the carefully arranged Republican nominating calendar into disarray and jumpstart the nominating process a month earlier than party leaders had hoped. 

CNN speculated that if this were to happen it would most likely force the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to push their primaries and caucuses up into early or mid-January.

The move by Florida would violate rules set out by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that forbids any states other than the four mentioned above from holding a primary before March 6th.

The point of jumping the queue is to have more relevance in choosing the eventual nominee. To police the matter, the RNC stipulates that anyone who ignores the rules is subject to losing half their delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida in August. Doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent.

Even those who only casually follow the calendar for the nominating process would understand how important the sequence of caucuses and primary can be for candidates who want to put together a coherent campaign strategy.

For example, Michele Bachmann has said that she will focus on winning in Iowa. Jon Huntsman is hoping he can help his campaign by doing well in New Hampshire. I'm sure Romney and Perry know exactly how well they would like to do in which states to keep the money and momentum flowing. Needless to say, planning is going to be hard if states are moving their dates hither and yon.

At the moment, the earlier primary and caucus dates, some sanctioned by the RNC and some not, are as follows:

  • Jan. 31 - Florida (in violation of RNC rules)
  • Feb. 6 - Iowa caucuses
  • Feb. 7 - Colorado caucuses (unknown if the RNC will object)
  • Feb. 14 - New Hampshire primary
  • Feb. 18 - Nevada caucuses
  • Feb. 28 - South Carolina primary
  • Feb. 28 - Arizona primary (in violation of RNC rules)
  • Feb. 28 - Michigan primary (in violation of RNC rules)
And many others will follow.

Already the organizers of the Nevada caucuses, which are sanctioned by the RNC, have said that they would in fact move their date if Florida went ahead with a January 31 primary.

Apparently, the RNC is hoping to strike a deal with Florida to put its primary on February 21st, immediately after the four early states. It would still be in violation of the rules, but wouldn't muck up the earliest contests.

While it is surely true that going earlier may give a state greater influence in choosing the eventual nominee, it looks just a little foolish and pretty disrespectful of an agreed upon process. Even though I'm on the other side of the political fence, the political organizer in me hates to see people ignore the rules of the game once everything is set in motion.

Sounds boring, but democracy requires rules, not that Republicans seem to care all that much about fair play, even amongst themelves. And of course given the vote counting travesty of 2000, we know that the GOP in Florida considers democracy little more than an annoyance.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Lessons from Florida; or, the dangers of ideological purity and forgetting the main thing


Two stories caught my eye in recent days that are, I think, related in a very interesting way. The first was about prospective Republican challengers to Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson as he seeks re-election in 2012. I wrote about this a few days ago.

It seems that GOP candidate State Senator Mike Haridopolos is in trouble with conservatives over mixed messages on his support for the Ryan budget plan, which has given his Republican rival, Adam Hasner, something with which to beat him up. Another Republican seeking the nomination, former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, has also been criticized by Hasner for his lack of ideological purity on the same issue.

Hasner's campaign manager, Rick Wilson, said the following:

It took Mike Haridopolos and Senator George LeMieux more than a week to give a straight answer about the only plan in Washington that would cut spending, reform entitlements and save Medicare.

That's not leadership; it's typical finger-in-the-wind politics that define Washington today. What's worse, after being pushed by the media, Senator Haridopolos chose to side with Bill Nelson and Barack Obama to undercut conservatives on the Ryan plan and defend the status quo in Washington.

For his part, LeMieux said later that he would have voted for the Ryan plan and Haridopolos, without specific mention of the plan itself, provided a rather defensive statement of his conservative bona fides in response to the charges. So, those contesting the Republican senate nomination in Florida are going at each other to prove who is a pure enough conservative using the Ryan plan as the litmus test.

Clearly we are going to see more of this sort of thing in congressional and senate races across the country.

The second story I came upon was about comments made by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour reported by Politico that any requirement for ideological purity in the presidential primaries will put the GOP at risk of losing the general election:

We're going to nominate someone for president who doesn't agree with you on everything and who you don't agree with on everything. But I'll tell you what. You're going to agree with them a whole lot more than you agree with Barack Obama.

Barbour went on to say the following:

Remember, in politics, purity is the enemy of victory. We cannot expect our candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity. Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing.

Whatever Barbour's other failings, he has always been a smart political operative, as truer words about the ins an outs of elections were never spoken.

It is true that Barbour's comments were about the GOP presidential nomination process, but they also apply to senate and house races in an interesting way.

Historically, it is well-known that a Republican politician in Maine is not the same as one in Texas or that a Democratic politician in New York is not the same as one in Arkansas or West Virginia. If your goal is to have as many members of your party in the House or the Senate, then it is generally wise to understand that regional flexibility is important, that national ideological litmus tests do not provide that flexibility.

I don't think it's a stretch to guess that there might be a lot of older voters in Florida who might be rather attached to their Medicare program just as it is. Having one of the Republican senate candidates in the state parsing every statement of his party rivals to ensure that they are in lock step with every nuance of the Ryan plan is a gift to the Democratic incumbent, plain and simple.

Florida Republicans like Haridopolos know that in order to beat a sitting Democratic senator, it will be wise to attempt to square the circle, to indicate support for conservative budgetary principles without necessarily committing, holus bolus, to a plan that is currently and may be even more unpopular by election day.

I am not in the habit of giving advice to Republicans, but they might all want to think about adopting the Barbour mantra: "Purity is the enemy of victory." Say it together now.

Hell, for absolutely no extra charge, I'll offer the same advice to Democrats. Get behind your team with unqualified support no matter how much you may disagree on some particulars because, as Barbour says: "Winning is about sticking together to achieve the main thing."

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's chances for re-election

By Richard K. Barry 

In my never ending quest to get a better handle on the more interesting political races coming up in 2012, I now turn my attention to Democrat Bill Nelson's Florida senate seat.

It's always interesting to see a politician who won the last time by such an overwhelming margin be considered in either a toss-up situation, as both The Cook Report and Roll Call have it, or as only marginally well placed to win, as Rothenberg sees it.

Nelson beat Republican Kathleen Harris in 2006 by a margin of 60.3% to 38.1%. You may recall that, as Florida Secretary of State, Harris played a pivotal role in stealing the presidential election for George W. Bush in 2000 and was, on account of that, a polarizing figure in the campaign before self-destructing. But I digress.

The point is simply that Nelson won handily in 2006 and yet is getting little respect from the leading political prognosticators in the business.

So what do we know?

Well, I think the first thing you'd have to notice is that the relatively new Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott is one of the least popular politicians in the country, and that can't hurt an incumbent Democratic senator's chances in 2012 in the same state. Scott is not alone as an unpopular Republican governor, but he has distinguished himself as a particularly loathsome hack, if I do say so myself.

As Bloomberg reports:

Scott took office in January and by April his disapproval among voters doubled after he called for cutting spending in schools and health care to close a $3.8 billion deficit. In May, his popularity was at the lowest in five months.

So, there's that working in Nelson's favour.

What else can we say?

A Quinnipac University poll released on May 26th had Obama's approval rating in Florida at 51%, admittedly fueled by the killing of Osama bin Laden, but a bump's a bump.

Accord to The Miami Herald, the poll also indicated that the Republicans may have quite a task ahead of them in their attempt to unseat Senator Nelson:

Nelson holds leads of between 20 to 25 points over three hypothetical contenders: former U.S. Senator George LeMieux, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos and former state Representative Adam Hasner.

It is no doubt early days in determining who the GOP challenger will be, but those are not good numbers for any of them.

Although, Peter Brown, the assistant director at Quinnipac, says that while Nelson appears to be in good shape, he does not win 50% against any of the three putative contenders. For some reason unclear to me Brown calls 50% the "magic threshold" that signals an incumbent will be difficult to beat. It is a nice round number. Maybe that's it.

Whatever the reason, that could be why the major handicappers are calling it a toss-up or very nearly. But Nelson still seems awfully strong especially considering one more number from the poll indicating that he has an approval rating of 51%, including 39% among Republicans.

I do note that a Public Policy Polling poll from December 2010 had Nelson with a job approval rating of just 36%, a disapproval rating of 33%, and another 31% not sure. This, of course, would have been back in the dark days after the disastrous midterm elections, but it does indicate a certain volatility amongst voters in The Sunshine State.

The same poll suggested that Jeb Bush would be the only Republican with a realistic chance of beating Bill Nelson, but, so far, apart from a Facebook page urging Jeb to run, I'm not finding much indication that Mr. Bush is so inclined. I suppose that could change.

Not for nothin', but, baring surprising developments, this race sure looks like the kind that hinges strongly on how well Obama ends up doing. In fact, we could say that about almost all of the Democratic senate races that are deemed close at this point, which may end up being good news for the Dems since I think Obama will do just fine in 2012.

Come to think of it, I'm not all that worried about Senator Nelson after all, no matter what Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg think. What do they know?

But in all seriousness, if you go back to just after the midterms, it seemed like it wasn't that hard to find people writing Nelson's political obituary and now not so much. I wonder how many twists and turns there will be on this one before November 2012? Maybe that's what Cook and Rothenberg know.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Rick Scott 2012


From Adam C. Smith of the St. Petersburg Times via the Miami Herald:

Rick Scott for president in 2012?

Absurd as it sounds, people who have talked to Florida’s tea party governor about the Republican presidential field are convinced Scott has a bid lurking in the back of his mind.

“I’m not running for president,’’ Scott declared last week.  Probably he won’t.

But let’s say the field of Republican candidates still looks muddled and uninspiring come November. Let’s say no one has managed to persuade Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to get in the race. Let’s say fed-up tea party activists still dominate the GOP primary electorate and show no enthusiasm for the “electable” Mitt Romneys, Tim Pawlentys and Jon Huntsmans of the world.

[...]

Any normal politician would recognize the ludicrousness. One of the nation’s most unpopular governors, not even a full, rocky year into the job, running for president?

Remember, though, Scott is no normal politician. A lot of people thought it nuts for a fellow known mainly for running a company that paid the biggest Medicare fraud fines ever to think he could win statewide office — in Florida.

Scott pulled it off, though it took spending more than $70 million of his own money. That was only about one-third of his net worth last year, so he still has plenty to self-finance a formidible campaign operation in early primary and caucus states.

Another consideration: Scott often appears to care much more about his perception in national circles than in Florida.

He appears constantly on Fox News. He’ll show up for the opening of an envelope in Washington if it involves hob-nobbing with Beltway celebs. He caught the political bug founding Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a group to combat healthcare reform, and constantly frames issues in a national context. Barack Obama was more of a foil in his gubernatorial campaign than Democrat Alex Sink, and he still frequently criticizes the president by name.

Folks outside of Florida may laugh, but here in Florida this dude has been doing his business for five months, and by any objective measure, he's a disaster. I know card-carrying life-long Republicans who shudder at the mention of his name. One of them said the reason Mr. Scott is bald is because he can't comb his hair; his image won't appear in a mirror.

There's no doubt that he has always had his eye on national office. Why not? In Republican circles, his record of shady business and corruption is a feature, not a bug. And while he campaigned on putting Florida to work, he and the GOP legislature decimated the state budget for schools and the environment, gave a lot of tax breaks to his rich friends, ran roughshod over the rights of doctors and women, and passed a bill regulating baggy pants in high school and outlawing sex with "dumb animals." (So the legislature took a vow of celibacy?) He's teabagger catnip.

There's a move afoot to amend the state constitution to recall the governor. It would be an arduous process, and by the time it's actually done, Mr. Scott's first term will be up, he'll be in the joint, or he'll be Michele Bachmann's vice presidential running mate. One way or another, his reign of terror in Florida will be over.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Monday, February 21, 2011

The Province of Florida

By Mustang Bobby.

NPR's Greg Allen had a report on Friday's All Things Considered about how Canadians are snapping up Florida real estate in record numbers thanks to the housing crash here and the strong economy in Canada.


The cars in a parking lot at Walmart in Hallandale Beach, near Fort Lauderdale, tell the tale. About 1 of out every 10 vehicles is from Canada. It's February; the weather is warm in Florida, so many are visiting tourists. But other Canadians are putting down roots.

One recent transplant, Doug Flood says, "If there ever was an 11th [Canadian] province, it probably would be Florida."

That got me thinking; with the U.S. economy in trouble and people from other countries willing to invest here, maybe Mr. Flood is on to something.  In order to balance the books, maybe we could do what a lot of people do when they're in financial straits: sell off property.  So maybe we could put out feelers to Ottawa: how much would they pay to buy Florida?
 

It would take a couple of appraisals, but I'm willing to bet that it would go for at least $10 trillion.  That would put a big dent in the deficit, and it would save the U.S. a lot of money in the future by not having to defend the southern border against flotillas of boat people coming from Haiti and drug smugglers coming in from other places.  And since Canada has full diplomatic relations with Cuba, the exile community here could travel back and forth to see their friends and families any time they wish instead of having to jump through all the ridiculous hoops that the State Department and Treasury make them go through just to get their abuelita a cell phone.

Going Canadian has some other advantages.  Their economy is stable, thanks to strong banking regulations that would have prevented the housing crash.  Their Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just as strong as the Bill of Rights.  For the liberals, Canada is a paradise with marriage equality for all people, strong gun-control provisions, and a foreign policy that basically says, "Hey, we're a big country but we're not obnoxious about it."  And for conservatives, there's a long tradition of hunting and fishing for the rednecks, and for the country-clubbers there's that link to the British heritage that still makes a big deal about class differences.  Canada is a part of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada.  Most Republicans are secretly monarchists, anyway; they've always believed in the divine right of elderly white people with lots of property being in charge of the masses.  And when Fantasy Fest rolls around in Key West, we could invite the Queen to participate in the festivities; a Queen among queens, as it were.

Canadian politics are generally more liberal than they are here; the farthest right-winger up there would be a moderate Republican here, and they have such things as single-payer healthcare administered by the provinces (which amounts to Medicare for all, regardless of age), along with private doctors and insurance, too, so there's the best of both worlds.  They also have a parliamentary system.  It's a lot like our system, with a lower house elected by the people and a senate (although their senators are appointed by the government and basically do nothing), but in their case the leader of the political party with the most seats is the Prime Minister, and he or she can be voted out any time by a vote of No Confidence.  Imagine doing that to John Boehner.


Other good points: the Canadian national anthem is much more singable and the lyrics are pretty easy.  The flag is simple: red and white with the maple leaf in the middle.  (The Florida provincial flag could have a palm frond.)  Both English and French are the official languages, but I'm sure we could work Spanish in there somehow.  They have different holidays than we do, but they're close to ours; Canada Day -- their Fourth of July -- is July 1, and instead of Memorial Day in May, they have Victoria Day around the same time.  They have Labour Day when we do, and their Thanksgiving is in October instead of November.  Retailers would love that; it adds six weeks to the Christmas shopping season.  Their money is the same as ours with dollars and cents, and their bank notes are very colourful.  The only thing we'd have to get used to is calling the dollar coin a "loonie," named for the bird on the back of the coin.  (The two-dollar coin is called, naturally, the "toonie.")  They have a form of football like we do; in fact, a lot of Americans have played in the Canadian Football League.  The rules are a little different -- three downs instead of four and 110 yards instead of 100 -- but it's football, not soccer, so the Dolphins, Buccaneers, and Jaguars could easily adapt, and they might even win a few games.  For those of us who love the arts, Canadians have always been strong supporters of theatre, art, and music.  Oh, and they do know how to make really good beer and whiskey.  As for technology, Waterloo, Ontario, is the home of the company that came up with the BlackBerry.  (But we won't hold that against them, I suppose.)

There are some downsides:  Canada uses the metric system, so there would be a lot of confusion for those who still don't know a meter (or a metre) from their foot.  Taxes are higher, depending on the province.  But I'm sure we could work things out; most of our cars already have metric speedometers (look at the little numbers inside the gauge) and buying gas by the litre wouldn't change how big your gas tank is.  You could also go 100 on the Palmetto Expressway in Miami...assuming you know that it's only 62 mph, and assuming the traffic isn't bumper-to-bumper.

But the really big question is whether or not Canada would take us.  Sure, they're buying up all the land and vacant homes and shopping at Wal-Mart and we provide a winter refuge for most of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; in Hollywood, Florida, you see as many signs that say Ici on parle français as you do Se habla español.  But would they want to buy this distressed property?  It's a nice place to visit, but it's a real fixer-upper if you're going to buy.


Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Right-wing Republican judge rules health-care law unconstitutional


So what else is new?

Republican-appointed judges, embracing conservative judicial activism (even if they would deny it), are ruling against the Affordable Care Act and basing their decisions on spurious legal reasoning:

A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at 2 to 2 in the lower courts as conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court.

But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so "inextricably bound" to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law.

"The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker," Judge Vinson wrote.

How odd that Vinson's words are a metaphorical version of the standard Republican talking point -- repeal and reform, even if Republicans have no alternative plan and no intention of introducing one anytime soon. (It's important to note, too, that Vinson based his decision to a great extent on the views of the right-wing, theocratic Family Research Council, hardly an impartial source.)

Ultimately, the law will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, so it doesn't much matter how these lower courts rule. Although, of course, the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, is partisan and, when it wants to be, activist. (Kennedy will likely be the swing vote, as usual.)

But Steve Benen makes some excellent points in putting this latest ruling into perspective:

First Update: Note that when Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia, a Bush appointee, reached a similar conclusion in December, in a ruling that no one seemed to think made any sense, he said the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but left the rest of the law intact. Reagan appointee Vinson, however, took a far more activist approach, striking down a massive piece of legislation because of one provision.

Republicans are thrilled, of course, because activist court rulings are to be celebrated, just so long as it's activism the right can agree with. 

Second Update: It's also worth emphasizing that two Republican-appointed federal district court judges have now found that the individual mandate -- an idea Republicans came up with -- is unconstitutional. And while that's important, let's not forget two other federal district court judges, appointed by Democratic presidents, came to the opposite conclusion.

Indeed, overall, about a dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.

In other words, when you hear on the news that "courts" have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it's actually a minority of the judges who've heard cases related to the law.

Aside from the obvious activism on display here, that last point is crucial. Only two judges, both Republican-appointed, have ruled against the mandate (the second also against the entire piece of legislation). The media focus disproportionately on these negative rulings, rulings that would seem to validate the Republican position, but the reality is that the law, including the mandate, has thus far been upheld everywhere else.

There's hardly any guarantee that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, but claims of the Affordable Care Act's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Season's greetings


If you thought there was a silly season in Florida, you're right. If you think the season is shorter than 52 weeks, then I would disagree, although a case can be made that as long as the legislature is in session, idiocy is in season.

But there are high points, special events worthy of special status, although which ones to celebrate differ from political faith to faith. I don't know how Florida's "smaller government" believers took the statement by one state representative against a bit of legislation forbidding anyone to participate in or watch for purposes of pleasure any sexual act including animals with the exception of the requirements of animal husbandry, but she seemed to understand that as allowing female humans to marry animals and she certainly opposed that, thank you very much.

It's hard to stand out as an idiot in a Florida crowd, but perhaps the following resolution, which was introduced last Christmas Eve by Sen. Gary Siplin, an Orlando Democrat, that would designate "Merry Christmas" as the official state greeting for December 25 will come close: 

WHEREAS, Christmas, a holiday of great significance to most Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world, and

WHEREAS, on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, and

WHEREAS, popular modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, music, the exchange of greeting cards, a special meal, church celebrations, and the display of Christmas trees, lights, and nativity scenes, and

WHEREAS, many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world celebrate Christmas as a time to cherish and serve others, NOW, THEREFORE,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State of Florida:

That “Merry Christmas” is recognized as the State of Florida’s official greeting for December 25. 

Can anyone make up stuff like this? I can't, and I wouldn't dare clog up the wheels of progress, if I'm still allowed to advocate it, with such Christmas fruitcake legislation while Florida is at the top of the unemployment and foreclosure heap. And yes, Siplin is a Democrat, and no, there's no false equivalence here. I report, you decide, and let the batshit fall where it may.

If it passes or does not, it's a gift to cynics that keeps on giving and it seems that every time the legislature meets it is indeed Christmas. Just don't ever call it a holiday.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Monday, November 8, 2010

How important is Marco Rubio?

By Peter Henne

In honor of last week's elections--and continuing today's Florida theme--I'm going to make a brief foray (descent?) into domestic politics. The subject: Marco Rubio.

Rubio, the conservative Republican Senator-elect from Florida, has been getting a lot of attention recently. Readers of
The Washington Post's "The Fix" voted Rubio the "most likely to run for President" and "most likely to succeed" out of the incoming congressional freshmen class. Others have discussed his "rock star status." This hyperbolic language is connected to his charisma, of course, but also by his margin of victory: Rubio beat the Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek, by 30 points.

It seems impressive, but assumes that Rubio and Meek were the only candidates running for Florida Senate. This obviously overlooks Governor and former Republican Charlie Crist, who ran as an independent. Crist took almost 30% of the vote.

So Crist got 30, Meek got 20, and Rubio almost 50... This means that Rubio handily beat the Independent and Democrat when considered separately, but his margin of victory basically disappears when the two are combined. His success thus hardly represents a complete rejection of Democrats or an overwhelming amount of popularity.

I am obviously assuming everyone who voted for Crist would have voted for Meek if Crist hadn't been in the race: this is most likely false. Crist voters probably included independents attracted to his governing style and Republicans too moderate for Rubio but not about to vote for a Democrat. Pre-election polling, however, suggested Crist was splitting the Democratic vote with Meek, while losing Republicans to Rubio. So it is likely that the majority of voters who went for Crist would have voted for Meek. What would have happened if Crist had not run as an independent after losing the primary to Rubio? Rubio would probably still have won, but it would have been tight.

Why does this matter? Well, a charismatic idealist who narrowly won a Senate race is one thing. A charismatic idealist who "trounced" his opponent in a Senate race is another. Some perspective may thus be called for in post-election discussions.

Charlie Crist considers Jim Morrison pardon


Yes, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist should pardon Doors lead singer Jim Morrison. (Is this really an issue?)

Richard Nixon, Jefferson Davis, Caspar Weinberger and his Iran-Contra cronies, George Steinbrenner, and Marc Rich get pardons, but Morrison doesn't?

What was he convicted of anyway? Indecent exposure and profanity at a concert in Miami in 1969? Oh, how awful.

Not that it matters all that much, not so many years later, but a pardon seems like the obvious and right thing to do.

**********

Enjoy your Monday, everyone (as corny as this particular performance, on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, happened to be):

Friday, October 29, 2010

Much ado about Crist, Rubio, Meek, and Clinton


There was much ado yesterday about reports that Bill Clinton had tried to get Democrat Kendrick Meek to withdraw from the Florida Senate race and throw his support behind Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist in an effort to beat Republican Marco Rubio. Crist is even saying that he talked to Meek and "several people" at the White House about it. Clinton has confirmed that he did urge Meek to withdraw. What is not clear, though, is whether Meek did in fact agree to drop out, twice, as has been reported. Meek's campaign manager has denied the story altogether. And Meek is staying in.

Two things:

First, the math doesn't add up. Crist + Meek is not necessarily > Rubio. And that is because it is unlikely that enough Meek supporters would switch to Crist. Many, presumably, just wouldn't vote at all. Like it or not, it has been Rubio's race to lose for some time. For this to have worked, Meek would have had to drop out and endorse Crist a long time ago. Or, of course, Crist should have switched parties and run as a Democrat. That, perhaps, would have put him ahead of Rubio.

Second, let's say Meek did drop out. Perhaps Crist would win, perhaps not. But what about Meek's fellow Florida Democrats who would presumably suffer from not having a Democrat in the high-profile Senate race. The Atlantic's Chris Good makes the point:

But, aside from finishing what one started, aside from the fact that Florida Democrats actually believe Kendrick Meek is the best choice for them, and aside from the fact that he has been telling people for years at this point that they should vote for him for actual reasons that have to do with policies he believes in, Meek's decision to stay in this race will help Democrats across the state of Florida, even if he doesn't win the Senate seat.

Florida is home to some significant, competitive races this year. The tight governor's race pits Democratic state CFO Alex Sink against millionaire Tea Party health care businessman Rick Scott, and the Cook Political Report rates five House races as competitive, including the re-election bids of Democratic Reps. Alan Grayson and Ron Klein. Four of those races are tilting the GOP's way, and Democrats can use all the help they can get.

Meek is now running a big, statewide campaign, with advertising and a get-out-the-vote operation that will turn out his supporters, many of whom will vote for the Democratic ticket, even if they've come to the polling place to support him.

The congressman's constituency through four terms in the House -- a constituency that was represented by his mother, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, immediately before Kendrick -- happen to reside in Miami's largest black community in a district that incorporates the northern part of the city.

If Meek dropped out, potentially thousands of black voters in Miami would have less of a reason to vote on Tuesday -- and that's on top of all the Meek supporters across the state of Florida -- which would almost certainly hurt Sink's campaign, in addition to the Democrat engaged in tough House races across the state.

Maybe I'm wrong about this (and maybe Good is wrong). Maybe Meek really could put Crist over the top by dropping out and endorsing him. But, with Rubio poised to win, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk, and I'm just not sure it's what's best for the Democratic Party, which has to look beyond a likely loss to Rubio. And isn't that what Democrats, including Bill Clinton, should be most concerned about?

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Rebound

By Carl 


Florida Democrat Alex Sink leads Republican Rick Scott in the race for governor of the fourth- most-populous U.S. state for the first time in a Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters.

Sink, the state’s chief financial officer, was supported by 45 percent of respondents to 41 percent for Scott, a former health-care executive, in the survey taken Oct. 18-24, the Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said today. The poll of 784 people has an error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Why interesting? Two reasons.

First, Sink had been lagging behind in the polls since, well, since the race shaped up during the primaries way back in the spring. Indeed, as late as October 1, she lagged six points behind Scott, who has Teabagger support (which is weird because he was founder of Columbia Healthcare, which went on to become the largest private healthcare provider in America...y ou'd hardly think of him as rabble).

Second, Scott has spent enormous sums of money. (Here's a trivia bit for you: Between Scott, Linda McMahon, and Meg Whitman, a quarter of a billion... billion with a "b"... has been spent. All three are now losing their races).

All summer and fall, we'd heard about the massacre the Republicans would pull off in November at the polls. It seems that was premature talk, which summer boasting usually is. People don't pay attention to the races until September, until after Labor Day, when our attention span snaps into place.

And of course, as Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Carl Paladino prove, in the emotion of battle, "warriors" become stupid. The Teabaggers believed anger would put them over the top, but as many smarter people than I will point out, you can only fool some of the people all of the time, and the fools are still fooled. The rest of us woke up.

Perhaps none too late. We'll see come Tuesday.

One side note: The parallels between Ronald Reagan's first term and President Obama's first term are remarkable. Reagan's polling at this moment in his first term (just before midterms) was worse than Obama's. Reagan lost 26 seats in the 1982 election. If this election is a mandate on Obama's first two years, he'll have to come in under that number for this election to be deemed a success.

It appears he just might do that.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Quote of the Day: Colin Powell on the "Ground Zero mosque"


The one-time possible president, on The View:

The terrorists win if we become terrified and... change who we are and what we are.

In other words: build Park51 where it is planned to be built, near but not at Ground Zero, and don't give in to the bigots and haters, including those who say the community center (not, strictly speaking, a mosque) should just be moved uptown a bit but who are really expressing broad anti-Muslim sentiment.

And, I would add, Park51 has nothing to do with the planned Quran burning in Florida. Terry Jones, the pastor of that despicable church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, spent today trying to connect the two, and trying to dominate the news, suggesting that he would refrain from burning the Quran if Park51 were moved. Park51 is intended to be a peaceful center for Muslims and for outreach to non-Muslims, whereas the Quran burning is intended to be an expression of Christian supremacism, an expression of hatred. In this sense, Park51 is deeply American, while the Quran burning is deeply un-American. Jones is spinning his bigotry as patriotism, and there is indeed a dark side to patriotism, but burning the Quran and expressing this sort of vilification of the Other runs counter, I would argue, to the core ideals that America purports to hold dear.

Thankfully, some major media outlets, including Fox News and the AP, have stated that they will not cover the Quran burning, should it take place on Saturday. Sure, the media have been drooling all over this story, just as I and many other bloggers have, but it's good to know that such bigotry would not be given the sort of attention that Jones so clearly desires.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Koran-burning could endanger U.S. troops, says Petraeus


As you may know, a Florida church is planning to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. It claims that the burning will be "neither an act of love nor of hate," but it is clearly the latter. Pastor Terry Jones has called Islam "of the devil," "a deceptive religion" and "a violent religion" that is "causing billions of people to go to hell."

This is despicable bigotry, of course, and the consequences could be bloody:

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church's plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration "could cause significant problems" for American troops overseas.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.

I think that's right. Here's a church that no doubt considers itself patriotic, in that right-wing way that is really more nativist jingoism than patriotism, potentially putting American troops in harm's way as a direct result of its anti-Muslim bigotry.

But it isn't just Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center that's doing it. There is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, including among mainstream conservatives and throughout the Republican Party, and much of it, I think, adds to the existing anti-American sentiment among America's enemies, providing them with a rallying cry for action and support. More, I think, it reinforces the less intense and often non-violent anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community generally, pushing some towards violence and others towards skepticism of America's intentions at the very least. Anti-Muslim sentiment is undermining efforts of engagement with the Muslim world, weakening America's credibility around the world and threatening what limited advances America has made in building meaningful relationships with Muslim countries and reaching out to Muslims generally.

And yet it continues. There are those, for example, who call Obama a Muslim, implying that there is nothing worse than being a Muslim, that being a Muslim is being anti-American, with Islam and America forever at odds with one another. And there are those, like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among so many others on the right, attacking the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero, Park51, implying that being a Muslim is essentially the same as being a terrorist, that the Muslims who would go to Park51 are essentially the same as those Muslims who flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. Why else, in their view, would it be disrespectful to have a Muslim community near Ground Zero?

If they even understand this, conservatives don't seem to care. And why would they? Many of them adhere to a radical right-wing worldview that pits America (and fundamentalist American Christianity) against Islam in a clash of civilizations to the death. Their ideology rests to a great extent on bigotry. And their electoral success relies on feeding the culture of fear and loathing at home, scaring Americans into being terrified of their defined Other (Muslims, gays, socialists, etc.).

But there are consequences. And like a boomerang, the hatred that goes out will come right back, a cycle that keeps feeding on itself, and growing, allowing extremists there and here to ratchet up the attacks.

It must be stopped, but how, with churches burning the Koran, conservatism moving ever further to the right, and the Republican Party descending ever further into madness? There is so much more to America than this right-wing and evangelical Christian bigotry, so much goodness and decency in the American soul, but it is that bigotry that gets the attention, and that gets projected, and perhaps Muslims and others around the world should be excused, short of responding with violence, for thinking that these bigots speak for America.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Sharia in Flori-Duh

By Capt. Fogg

I used to bridle at the popular smear: Florid-Duh -- after all I live here, but perhaps it's time to recognize that this smelly shoe fits pretty well and we can't avoid wearing it. My suspicion began back when a State Representative balked on passing a bill mentioning Animal Husbandry for fear it would lead to legalizing marriage between people and animals and now that I read about Daniel Webster, candidate for the US Congress, who is endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel and former Governor and Presidential brother, Jeb Bush as well, I have to confess. We're not just the Sunshine State; we're Flori-Duh.

Webster is no political neophyte and hardly an outsider to the Republican Party. He was Speaker of the Florida House, Majority Leader of the Florida Senate and was in the State Legislature for 28 years. While there, he introduced a bill which was meant to create something he calls "covenant marriage" and others have called the "Roach Motel Marriage." You can check in, but you can't check out. Under this law, so closely resembling what one sees only in Taliban controlled areas, there is no excuse for divorce except for the infidelity of one partner. If both are unfaithful, you don't check out. If your partner beats hell out of you, sets you on fire or molests your children, you live with it for the rest of your life. So much for the Republican fable that it's the Liberals looking to institute Sharia law in the US.

Certainly, the history of bizarre Congressional proposals is rich with idiotic attempts such as this, but remember, Dan Webster is not considered beyond the pale of modern conservatism, he's a favorite son of what's left of the Republican Party; a party not satisfied only to roll back all progress in human rights since the 1960's, but the 1860's and perhaps the 1760's. Don't forget the recent and still popular Vice Presidential candidate who spoke of Witches as a real problem or the elected officials who don't believe in evolution and think Geology and Archaeology are fraudulent.

If there are many of them who can smell the idiocy, they're too partisan to mention it and indeed, the ride they've been taking on the wave of superstition, suspicion and stupidity has taken them a long way and they're along way from giving it up. The wave never seems to break and it won't until we break it.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)