Rubio's Betrayal of Hispanics

It must be tough being a minority politician and, at the same time, a darling of a movement built on hate. Apparently, Marco Rubio is having as much trouble taking a stance on hating brown people in Florida as he did about hating brown people in Arizona. This tea party crusader lacks the leadership to stand up to race-baiting within his own party, and as bigotry drives more of the political conversation in the Sunshine State, it would be nice for this supposed ideological leader to stand up for something on his own.

The problems increased for Rubio this week when Bill McCollum, in his own rush to out-crazy a crazy, came out with an Arizona-like proposal to discriminate against Hispanics. This law will give police power during "lawful stops" to demand people prove their legal immigration status. I'm sure white people like myself are busy getting their paperwork in order and making room in the glove compartment.

Rubio, though, can't tell this is a bad idea. His campaign declined to take a stance when asked by Politico. This is pure cowardice, and is worse than his queasy back-and-forth regarding Arizona's law because this will actually affect his constituents should he be elected as a U.S. Senator. I've noted his fearful cowering in the face of tea party anger before, but this bill has particularly horrible ramifications in Florida. And for a man so proud to tout his Cuban-American heritage, I would hope he could see the specific ways enforcement of this type of law could go much worse here than in other parts of the country.

Cuban immigrants don't work by the same rules as those crossing the border from Mexico. We have the ridiculous and arbitrary 'wet-foot, dry-foot' policy, a child of the dinosaur Cuban embargo which every Senate candidate this year ardently supports. Sigh. What that means is Cubans who make it to dry land are not illegal. Does this policy make sense? No. But more importantly in this conversation, it makes it much harder to demand a newly-arrived immigrant from Cuba to "prove" his citizenship.

The law makes no sense anyway. The Arizona law, of course, had its controversial sections tossed in court. That law practically requires discrimination, and even if some of the more onerous parts are scrubbed, it remains bad policy.

But while we can blame so-called conservatives for preventing Rubio from taking a firm stance on that law, his tea-carrying ways don't even make sense for the Republican primary in Florida. If the GOP has any long-range future in the state, it will need a foothold in the Hispanic community, and there are no guarantees that will happen. The Bush administration knew this the last time this Senate seat was up for re-election. That was part of why the White House was so happy to see Mel Martinez as their nominee. Martinez, also a Cubano, was deeply aware that the future of the Republican party was deeply dependent on future support among Hispanic voters.

Read this Martinez quote from the 2004 CNN piece linked above:

---

"This community is still up for grabs. It's a big factor."

---

Martinez won that Senate race in a very close contest with Democrat Betty Castor, and he can thank Hispanics for that. Bush also won Florida in 2004, and did so by increasing his share of the Hispanic vote by 7 percent, according to an analysis that year by the National Review. Bush's win was close, and Martinez's was closer, and I think it is fair to believe the presence of a candidate who would become the first Cuban-American elected to the Senate played a huge role in motivating Hispanic Republicans that year.

That National Review report notes that Florida traditionally has boasted the most conservative Hispanic population in the country, thanks largely to the Republican bent of Cubans in South Florida. So why would Rubio, the Cubano conservative hero chosen to follow in Martinez's footsteps, be so unconcerned about preserving that base support? It is, quite simply, insane.

Of course, one constant misperception about the Hispanic vote in Florida is that it is all Cuban, and all conservative. A Pew analysis of Florida's vote in 2008 shows Hispanic Democrats outnumber Hispanic Republicans in the state both in registration and at the polls. Pew also finds that Cubans make up just the third-largest share of the Hispanic electorate, behind Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.

Rubio ought to think about that as he excoriates Mexicans crossing the border, and as he gets wishy-washy on a law that has most detrimentally affected law-abiding Mexicans across this country. Puerto Ricans, who are all citizens, likely won't be too excited about the consequence of this law either. At least he came down on the right side of the offensive "birthright citizenship" issue, but there is little reason for Hispanic voters to galvanize around an Hispanic candidate if he can't be trusted on Hispanic issues.

Fear of upsetting a fast-growing and influential part of the electorate, though, shouldn't be the only reason to oppose this law. It most likely can't stand legal muster, and does nothing to solve the problems of illegal immigration in the first place. As a U.S. Senator, Rubio would accomplish more in this front by helping improve the impoverished way of life in Mexico, or by helping modernize relations with Cuba. But that sort of intervention, the type that can be done without costing the lived of American or foreign lives, is an obvious no-no with the right. Hate is the only tool Republicans have left that reliably gets voters to the poll.

At some point, Rubio needs to consider with whom he has thrown his lot. These hate-mongering conservatives are the same ones who got Martinez booted as chairman of the Republican National Committee and who questioned the citizenship of Columba Bush. The only thing Rubio should be concerned about is when they will turn on him.

HuffPo Explores Meek and the Black Vote

Granted, there is a lot of guesswork contained here, but there is certainly interesting information about the amount of black voters within Florida's Democratic primary, and some supposition on whether the polls are underestimating Meek's support.

An excerpt from Mark Blumenthal's piece:

---

Here's a wager: Next Tuesday Meek will get at least 80% and probably closer to 90% of Florida's African-American vote. If I'm right, it means that all three polls are likely understating Meek's overall vote percentage by at least 8 to 10 percentage points.

---

The polls he lists are a Mason-Dixon I noted yesterday, a Quinni I dissected at length in late July and an internal Meek poll. I do suspect support among black voters is higher for Meek than any of these polls contend, though I worry whether turnout among black voters will be especially high. Meek is no Barack Obama, so I think looking at 2008 registration numbers provides a false sense of hope. Never mind that Meek has run a thrifty, quiet campaign whereas the presidential elections usually provide Florida with an overwhelming assault of campaign advertising.

But I do agree with Blumenthal's basic premise that Meek's potential has been underestimated by the political punditocracy. Particularly in the primary, educated voters will make the decision on the Democratic nominee, and educating oneself about this race provides more reasons to vote for Meek and against 'bad man' Jeff Greene.

The Difference

A debate on the issues between Jeff Greene and Kendrick Meek is honestly a bit of a joke. The two men, in terms of stated ideology, don't have a great deal of distance between them, if any. I guess it is no surprise the only thing anyone could glean from the televised debate tonight is that these guys hate each other.

But without ideological milestones, these attacks against one another did show the difference that matters. One of these guys is a rich vanity candidate whom many of us suspected might be running on a dare. The other is a long-time public servant with an actual record to stand upon. Ethical charges seem to mean Florida is destines to see a lot of negative advertising this election cycle (though we're used to it), but it is worth noting at this point how long the list of Greene's lapses is compared to Meek's.

Tonight, Meek rightfully took Greene to task over this 2007 trip to Cuba. Greene says he took the boat into the embargoed nation for repairs, or on a Jewish philanthropy mission, or a vomit party, or to get Mike Tyson some drugs. Really, who can remember all the way back to 2007. That's like trying to recall if you voted for Ronald Reagan.

People who talk about the Dennis Stackhouse scandal like it is the sort of baggage that could sink Meek really need to pay better attention to the scandals which surround every other serious candidate in this race. Fortunately, Meek showed in the debate tonight that he can go toe to toe with well-monied loudmouths who are running out of cards to play in this crazy race. And, I imagine, Greene is starting to realize how thin his ops research folder on Meek looks compared to the plethora of scandal starting to dog his campaign.

An excerpt from the debate via the Miami Herald/St. Pete Times:

---

``Why didn't you go to your two United States senators in California,'' Meek asked Greene, who moved to Florida less than three years ago. ``You're a man of wealth, you're a man of influence, you're a man of power ... You decided to profit first and then go on national television and gloat about the money you made.' "

---

While some polls put out last week, had us all on edge, Democratic voters are on crunch time now. As they hear more about this race, they want to learn more. And a few days ago, it seemed that hunger for information was paying off for Meek. Whether Greene's old lead was a bump or an outlier, it seems as if things are breaking Meek's way once again with USA Today reporting a four-point lead.

The problem with Green is that all these mailers which look like FBI files on Meek are now old news. The more one learns about the Stackhouse scandal, the more it seems Meek was swindled, not that he was part of a great conspiracy. And unless an Ethics Commission indictment gets handed down, which seems unlikely, there isn't any more juice in that rock.

But Greene has a treasure trove of problems already on record. He made billions betting against homeowners and the banks had to pay out his winnings just as the FDIC was shutting them down. He bragged about his super-deals to Forbes from about his 145-foot yacht. (By the way, do you think Greene wishes he purchased a better toy than the Summerwind right about now?) This trip to Cuba, which is more than minor indiscretion in the world of Florida politics, seems to be gift to Meek that keeps on giving.

And since all the general voter knows about Greene is that he came from nowhere and blew a bundle on this race, these scandals stick a little nastier than usual. Meek, along with Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist, is on Crew's crooked list, but has a list of accomplishments to fall back upon. Greene only has a money pit.

Which makes the children's tale that Jeff recalled today all the more ridiculous. Again, via the Herald/Times account:

---

``I was brought up as a kid that if you have nothing good to say you say nothing at all,'' billionaire Palm Beach real estate mogul Greene said.

---

And yet, he speaks.

Why Tough Primaries Rule

Everyone likes a good fireworks show, and we are finally getting it in the Democratic party primaries in Florida. Unfortunately, party leadership is as flummoxed by the idea of competition as ever, as demonstrated by some of the comments in this Creative Loafing piece, but progressive voters and better informed and better off for the recent primary season tensions making headlines right now.

I think the best example is in the current Attorney General race, an affair which until the past several weeks was failing to win any attention. Right now, I think Democrats are on track to win this race, though I have yet to see a poll which pits either Democratic candidate against any of the Republicans. Why do I think this? Because people are paying attention. Why are people paying attention? Because things are getting deliciously nasty.

For what it's worth, I think state Sen. Dan Gelber has the upper hand, despite this poll cited in Sunshine State News which shows state Sen. Dave Aronberg winning 20-18. Those doing math at home realize that's a lot of undecided voters for a two-man race. But those voters will make up their minds soon. Most party leaders have avoided choosing sides in the race, mostly because either candidate would do well in a general election contest, but even that is starting to change.

Things got good this weekend as Aronberg began running television ads ripping Gelber for working at Akerman Senterfitt. (That link goes to The Buzz, which apparently had to video the ads off television because Aronberg doesn't do the YouTube thing) Now these negative ads have folks like Senate Minority Leader Nan Rich, enough so she got off the fence and endorsed Gelber. Via that Creative Loafing piece:

---

"Maybe I was a little naïve," Rich said by telephone last week. "I was going to be neutral, until this happened," she says of the BP fracas. "It pushed me over to the Gelber side."

---

Well good. Democratic voters have to make a decision soon. So should leadership. Many people say these attacks are unfair, and that Gelber's association with the firm hardly means he was defending BP. True enough. I noted here that Gelber was in on the importance oil would play in all Cabinet races long before that dawned on Aronberg. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't defend himself.

After Aronberg brought up the issue, Gelber left his firm. Should Gelber win the primary, that means he has shaken a bit of baggage before the general. And Republicans won't be able to hit him nearly so hard. If Aronberg wins the primary, he has a stronger position as the bringer of high standards.

And as attacks go, these aren't awful. Does anyone remember Peter Deutsch destroying Bettey Castor with a false link to Palestinian terrorists via USF professor Sami al-Arian? Deutsch, who was losing the Democratic primary for Senate in 2004, decided to scorch the earth and say since Castor was president of USF while a professor was there raising money to help Palestinian causes, she must secretly be harboring terrorists. That was total garbage, and by Duetsch running TV ads about it during the primary, it gave Republican Mel Martinez a vetted death blow, probably a big enough one to win the close election.

But what will the Republicans do with the BP connection? None of them will even take a stance against offshore drilling.

Meanwhile, this entire episode is getting both Gelber and Aronberg attention while the Republicans seem to run an invisible campaign. Jeff Kottkamp, Holly Bensen and Pam Bondi may as well be random assemblies of letters on the ballot. None is a star, and none can establish themselves as frontrunners.

So long as the entire ticket isn't destroyed here, the high-profile tension is good for Gelber and Aronberg. Whoever wins, at least somebody cares that it happened.

Unliked is not Unconstitutional

Since Impeachment Bill McCollum first filed a lawsuit against health care reform, I have been disgusted by a political stunt and the use of taxpayer dollars to counter the agenda of duly elected leaders. I was pleased to see Alex Sink and the Democratic party rake him over the coals for this anti-democratic, anti-fiscal conservative act. But when I read the words today of a Republican looking to succeed McCollum as Attorney General, I was struck by just how unconcerned modern Republicans can be about the law.

From Sunshine State News:

---

Backing Attorney General Bill McCollum’s constitutional challenge to new federal health-care laws backed by President Barack Obama, Benson called the new measures “the slippery slope toward socialized medicine” and said she would continue the fight against it.

---

That is Holly Bensen, former Health Care Administration secretary and one of three Republicans vying for the post. And according to a poll by the same news source, she is in a dead heat with Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp and former state prosecutor Pam Bondi. (Of note, I have frequently called Kottkamp the clear GOP frontrunner, but this poll indicates there is no such thing.)

What disturbs me about Bensen's position is that it is not simply politically-motivated but also logically bereft. McCollum has argued that mandating people have health insurance is a burden which violates their constitutional rights, kind of like making people pay taxes. This is stupid, of course, but it's an argument. I don't believe it will hold legal muster, and I don't think McCollum cares. He just wants to rile up the conservative base during the governor's race with an anti-Obama lawsuit he knows will be thrown out, but which likely won't reach a conclusion until his tenure as Attorney General is done.

Bensen, though, doesn't go through the niceties of making up a paper-thin justification. She just calls the reform names. SOCIALISM! What garbage. You don't need to be a lawyer to see the problems with this line of attack.

Of course, health care reform is not socialism. The proposal which could most accurately be labeled as socialism was the public option, but that was dropped during the watering down process our Congress calls legislating. If only this health care package was socialism. Then it might guarantee fairness and equity in the availability of medical care in the United States. Instead, the package signed into law by President Obama was little more than a series of new regulations, most of which won't go into effect until after the end of his first term.

Which gets to the fundamental problem with Bensen's statement. Socialism in and of itself is not unconstitutional. With all the talk among tea partiers of protecting the Constitution and fending off socialism, you would think our Founding Fathers were gripped by a red scare and that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was among the co-signers on the Declaration of Independence. Did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson envision this reform package? Probably not, but they didn't seem pre-occupied with making sure such laws would never get passed in the 13 colonies.

Much of what the American government does is socialism, including the few programs which conservatives so bitterly defend. Forcing all Americans to chip in tax dollars to pay for a police force that watches over our own people? Implementing a National Guard with the right to fire upon and kill this nation's citizens if they cause unrest? Forming a military force capable of imposing the political will of American leaders on neighboring countries based on the supposed notion of protecting America's collective interests? That is socialism. Helping poor people pay for surgery? Not so much.

And yet the creation of a police force and military are not unconstitutional. Why? The drafters of the Constitution were not concerned with socialism. Indeed, even after escaping the tyranny of King George III, our Founding Fathers still found a need for some centralized government and working function of society as a whole.

It is bad enough that an Attorney General who supposedly hates frivolous lawsuits would file suit on a law he simply doesn't like in an attempt to suck up to nutjobs. If we end up with an Attorney General who doesn't understand the basics of what makes something unconstitutional, then we are taking a nearly-impossible-to-find step down.

A Kinder Side to Meek

This is the sort of ad I hope goes up everywhere in Florida. Meek has to play rough with Jeff Greene, but if he never gives people something to vote for, he will not win. I like this bio piece a lot. It boasts his progressive credentials and gives that every-man feel a former Congressman needs to survive in this political environment.

Must admit, though, I worry if the Carrie Meek footage will come back to bite him. I hope not, but she is the one with ties to the Stackhouse issue. Portraying her as just a single mom in West Florida, well...

P.S. I realize this blog is getting a little Meek heavy. For those loyal readers getting tired of that, I promise to get back to the Cabinet and Congress races very soon.

In Defense of Kendrick Meek

At the start of the Senate campaign this cycle, I was among the many who had serious doubts about Kendrick Meek. Back then, it didn't matter much. Charlie Crist, then a Republican, seemed to be the slate-cleaning candidate who scared every serious Republican and Democratic challenger away. But over the past several months, it has become increasingly clear to me that Meek is no sacrificial lamb. At least he should not be. I believe he is the best shot we have at sending a truly progressive senator to Washington since the days of Claude Pepper.

That makes it all the more frustrating to see so many dismiss his candidacy. This kind of nay-saying is contagious, and has created a conventional wisdom that Meek has no shot at winning the race. The irony is that the reasons many use to justify such an opinion are exactly why he has as good a chance as he could ever hope. Meek is a black, southeast Florida liberal who, in a normal election year, would endure setbacks for all of his attributes. But thanks to a fractured right and election law that allows the Senate race to be won with a plurality, this election should be shaking down exactly as the Democrats could normally just dream.

Admittedly, he has challenges in a primary run from Jeff Greene. The self-financed vanity campaigns of Greene and Rick Scott has shaken up the races this year in ways Florida might never have endured before. But educated, activated Democrats are the ones who will vote in August. So long as informed liberals avoid the distraction of glossy mailers and sweaty television campaigns, we should have a strong candidate in Meek for the general election.

Come November, there is no reason Meek cannot beat Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. This is where many of you will start jumping up and down and calling me naive. But please hear out my reasons.

The number one reason I hear from Democrats who plan to vote for Crist is that Rubio cannot be allowed in the Senate. But consider the visceral response to Rubio and ask yourself how broad an appeal he might have? Republicans benefit this year from an activated base, which I concede does help Rubio, but also because they offer an alternative to the party in power. In most major Senate races, they offer the only alternative. Not in Florida.

Those independent and moderate voters that tend to swing against the incumbent party in ugly times would normally vote Republican in a race like this. Don't like Harry Reid's track record? Hold your nose and vote Angle. Of course, Angle is so nutty many voters in Nevada can't stomach doing that. In Florida, they don't even need to try. Indy-Crist will get those votes, but he won't get the base. What would normally be a winning formula - crazy nuts+disenchanted moderates=Republican Senator - has been severely disrupted by Charlie's mad rush to the center.

Where does that leave us? With the highest number of registered Democrats in state history. Thanks to the Obama juggernaut in 2008, more young people are on the books as registered Dems. More blacks feel like they are a part of the political process as well. And here we are, with a baby-faced, distinguished African-American as our nominee for state office for the very first time. What about this sounds like a poor position?

Of course, in a two-man race, appeal to the left would not be enough, Meek would need to make huge concessions to the center and swear he won't be so pro-worker in the Senate. We've seen this with Betty Castor, whose issues with Sami al-Arian made her remiss to oppose the Patriot Act, and to very real degree with Bill Nelson, who won on a corporate-friendly platform that secured broad support but has left many liberals in Florida wanting more.

Meek only needs to win with 35-40 percent of the vote to have a landslide victory. It becomes more apparent each day Rubio cannot win because moderate Republicans won't support him. Crist is a pariah among conservative partisans, and his actions in recent months show how aware he is of the fact Democrats must play a role in any victory in November.

But while Crist polls well in the summertime, he will not be named in any robocalls funded by the Florida Democratic Party or the Republican Party of Florida. President Obama will not stump for Charlie Crist. Indeed, I doubt the president could avoid making some trips in support of Meek. The theory Obama will tacitly support Crist, perhaps pragmatically and perhaps out of spite for Meek backing Clinton in 2008, ignores the optics of the first black President turning his back on potentially the first black Senator from the fourth largest state in the union. No state as large as Florida has sent an African-American to the Senate. How could Obama spit on that possibility without angering many black leaders in this state?

So don't give up on Kendrick Meek. If you look purely at his positions, he offers the most to progressive voters of anyone on the ticket. And if you look at his odds of victory, and take a big picture look rather than glimpse at a mid-July poll, you see this may be the best shot we have a true liberal victory for a very long time.