Run a Democrat for Governor!

This seems so extraordinarily obvious, but in deciding who should be the next Democratic nominee for governor of Florida, can we stick to speculating about Democrats? Adam Smith, top politics guy at the St. Pete Times, wrote up a piece about the lineup of people who want to challenge Rick Scott in 2012. Now, I realize he probably didn't write the headline, but titling the piece "Crist for Governor? As a Democrat?" just irks me.

It is no secret I don't hold Charlie Crist in the highest regard. That said, if he actually switches parties and begins helping to organize Democrats in the state, he may be able to earn my respect. But to date, he has not done so, nor hinted he might do so.

I hope the "Democratic leaders" who talked up Crist at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner realize they helped make a registered independent into the most talked about Democrat in Florida, and I hope they some day regret doing so. As I have pointed out before, Charlie Crist had a shot last year to throw in with the Democrats, but instead held a nationally-televised press conference where he said he would rather run as an independent.

He spent the entire campaign cycle last year refusing to say who he would caucus with if elected to the United States Senate. He reportedly told John Morgan he would caucus with Dems, but told Bob Dole he would caucus with Republicans. He spent an enormous amount of effort last year saying both parties were bad, and that he as Senator would save us from partisan politics altogether. Never mind he was happy to engage in partisan politics until the tea party turned his party upside down.

But I do not mean to re-engage in Crist-hating. My problem is that Florida Democrats, looking toward an election more than three years away, need to be cultivating talent within their own ranks, not recruiting defectors from the other side. Who could we run instead of a the effective leader of the Republican Party until a year ago?

Alex Sink came within a hair of winning the election for governor last year, and surely would have if not for a Republican wave that hit Florida especially hard.

Dan Gelber, while having a disappointing showing in the AG race, but is already putting together a strong public relations effort rebuking Scott and has the endurance, I believe, for a long campaign (plus he has produced the lovely stump line "Floridians are retracing their steps to figure out how they woke up with a tiger in their bathroom and Lex Luther as governor.")

Word is Rod Smith wants to run, though he probably won't is Sink, who picked him as running mate last year, gives this another go.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio and Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown are all strong leaders who have won high-population constituencies, and all happen to have been preceded by Republicans. Any one of them has demonstrated an ability to win over swing voters and develop a regional brand, and it should not be difficult to expand those brands statewide.

I am sure that countless other Democratic prospects will arise in the next two years as well, so long as the party looks to cultivate its own talent. The Florida Democratic Party has been in shambles for most of the last decade, but is faced with tremendous opportunity to build right now. This opportunity should not be squandered the way so many have been before.

And When You Run Out of Arguments...

Nobody in American politics is willing to admit defeat, especially in the war of ideas, but we do have a long tradition of resorting a certain alternative: personal attacks. Read just such a tactic in Politico regarding Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

From the article:
---
She’s accused Republicans of wanting to reinstate segregation and of waging a “war on women.” She has asserted, somewhat nonsensically, that the GOP wants to make illegal immigration — by definition against the law — “a crime.” She’s also been mocked for driving a foreign car after pounding Republicans for not supporting the American auto industry.
---

So for pointing out Republicans' sexist and discriminatory policies, and for apparently purchasing a reliable automobile, DWS is apparently a bad pick to lead the DNC. So obvious.

Let's reverse this argument for a second, just to prove a point. Critics say Wasserman Shultz is too aggressive to be a good party leader, so I guess that means a better chief would be passive. Rather than attacking a lengthy, disturbing record for Republicans of trying to redefine rape, preventing women from getting equal treatment in the workplace and generally backing legislation that is "anti-woman," a good DNC leader would applaud creative legislation which more narrowly defines forcible sex, commend those with the bravery to oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Act and celebrate the continuation of the good ole boy network as a wonderful tradition in politics.

And she would by a car that could not get to 200,000 miles without being traded in.

Yes, that is what a winning message would be for Democrats. To have someone that politely acknowledges bigoted policies as an interesting alternative, and who regularly states that GOP leadership is probably just doing the best they can. That will win elections.

For some reason, Democrats have always been queasy about playing hardball when it comes to politics, never mind that we only win when we defend out ideas. The same things being said now about DSW were said in 2006 about Howard Dean. He had lost the nomination for president because the Democratic establishment was sure America would prefer the nice nap that comes with every John Kerry stump speech over feeling any fire in your belly should a candidate scream too loud. When he took over the DNC the following election cycle, the right rubbed their hands supervillain style over the impending implosion which would result if Democrats stood on principle. Instead, we took back the House and the Senate.

If you look back at elections past, Democrats win when we stand on our ideals and fight for our beliefs. When we get squishy about it, it sends a message to America that we don't really take our own crap seriously, and the voters side with the always-strident GOP.

The people are really scared about with DSW is that she is strong woman who speaks the truth without stuttering. But hesitation always sends the wrong message. Stating beliefs with conviction is not a liability. It is a strength that demonstrates leadership both within our own ranks and to the public at large.

Let's celebrate that for once.

Is This The Best They Got?

When I read other blogs, I wonder if I should be writing more about Mike Haridopolos. His recent disastrous performance on the Ray Junior show has made him the subject of endless political mockery once again. He is hated as much by members of his own party as he is by any other group, and the aspects of corruption with his book deal with Brevard Community College have been overshadowed with the laughable factor the book was so bad it was not broadly released.

Despite all of this, he seems to be the frontrunner against incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. Simply amazing.

Sometimes, one wonders what type of magic elixir Bill Nelson consumed as a young lawmaker to make his Senate career so fortuitous. When he ran in 2000, he was blessed when Republican leadership interfered with an interesting primary that year and made sure Bill McCollum got the nod with very little vetting, and subsequently allowed Nelson to sit back and watch a politician with legendary poor charisma brag about the Clinton impeachments. Despite the historically close presidential election results that year, Nelson destroyed McCollum at the polls.

Six years later, Republican interference couldn't stop Katherine Harris from becoming the nominee. The controversial and polarizing candidate was always a longshot to win a general election, but when it became clear 2006 would be a Democratic wave year, it seemed even the strident Harris gave up on the race, doing few events and eventually succumbing to Nelson in that race.

Right now, it seems 2012 is going to end up another easy re-election battle for Nelson. That isn't to say he shouldn't be stocking up for war. Who thought two years out that Ron Klein would lose to Wild Wild West?

But Haridopolos is an utter joke, and if he becomes the nominee, he will be the least serious candidate for U.S. Senate I have seen in my lifetime. Who will stop him? I read that conservatives like Adam Hasner, but a term as Republican leader in the Florida House is neither a great way to build a resume or to develop any significant name recognition statewide. It is a way to get some skeletons in your closet which will come out the second he seems like a serious candidate. For example...

Who else will run? It seems amazing in a state where politics are so incredibly dominated by the GOP that noone wants to challenge Nelson during a presidential year. The GOP National Convention is being held in Tampa next year, and the GOP knows it can only beat Obama if they win in Florida. If they don't have a goos Senate candidate, that will be very hard to do.

There are no other statewide offices up for grabs in 2012, but no Cabinet members seem interested in running. The governor has shown no interest, and probably isn't going to be in a good place to make such a run in 2012 anyhow. So what is it?

I think people know that the next election cycle is going to go our way. They don't say so out loud, but the lackluster list of candidates for President is as good a demonstration as any. Any GOP candidates in Florida with serious ambitions for serving Florida knows they have a better shot at getting stuff done in a state office right now, then considering a run for Washington in the future. All of Florida's Republican Congressman are probably pretty confident the redistricting process will make re-election to the House easy, while running statewide is undeniably hard.

And so, somehow, Sen. Bill Nelson seems likely once again to coast, and Mike Haridopolos seems ready for two years of ridicule.

The Huntsman Implosion

It was an interesting choice when ex-Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman decided to open his presidential campaign in Orlando, as opposed to his home state of Utah or in Washington, D.C., but I always had the sense he was giving up more than he gained operating out of Florida. A Politico piece today touches on the same sense:

---
Orlando, Florida is nearly 2,000 miles away from Salt Lake City as the crow flies, about as far as you can get from Jon Huntsman’s old office in the Utah statehouse without dropping off the continental United States entirely.

Huntsman’s recent decision to headquarter his campaign in Florida makes sense for logistical and political reasons but the location—and some recent remarks about his faith — have combined to produce a sharp reaction from the Mormon Establishment, solidifying the impression for many of the former governor’s constituents that he plans to keep his distance in more ways than one.
---

The article goes on to speak more about Huntsman's awkward distancing between himself and the Church of Latter-Day Saints than it does on his move to the Sunshine State, which really only gets some lip service at the end where politicos concede Florida is a better place to run a campaign than Utah. But the move feeds into a larger narrative that is growing around Huntsman on the web - that he is an untrustworthy phony. Moving his campaign to the theme park capital of the world only makes that narrative too easy to write.

The question isn't whether Florida is a good place to run a campaign. It is. This is going to be a swing state, assuming Obama doesn't just wipe the field in 2012. There could be a hot Senate race (though I have yet to see a truly intimidating candidate jump in). If the GOP has a shot at taking the White House, it will have to compete here, and will probably need to win. This is the fourth-largest state in the union, and still has so many people coming and going between election cycles that pols need to constantly rebuild the base. There is money in Florida, and most importantly, there are 29 electoral college votes in play. This is why the 2012 GOP Convention will be held in Tampa.

But weighing these benefits presumes Huntsman will be the nominee. He has to win a primary first, and the national parties have made very clear they won't let Florida have a meaningful role in selecting the party nominee. He is currently tanking in polls, not surprising since he has never been a significant national stage player on domestic issues. And even Obama-hating blogs have taken a major issue with Huntsman effectively beginning his run for president while serving the current administration.

All this is to say Huntsman has a lot to worry about before worrying if he can win Florida in November of 2012.

If he can't stand campaigning from Salt Lake City, he should work from D.C., where he has access to fundraisers and campaign gurus who could justify the decision to leave his home state behind.

But right now, Huntsman looks like a fake who was lying about his own ambitions while representing the United States interests to China, doesn't want to branded as a Mormon and wants to high-tail it from Utah, the state which put him in its governor's mansion and provided him the most credible perch from which to launch a presidential campaign.

At least he is helping our local economy a little. But I wouldn't expect the jobs created in Orlando by the Huntsman campaign to be permanent ones.

Let's Hope We Budgeted a Sign Scraper

In the ridiculous waste of tax dollars pot, we can now put Gov. Rick Scott's plan to plaster his own name on every "Welcome to Florida" sign which the state has at our borders. How can a fiscal conservative defend this expense?

Vie WDBO:
---
"I think they look nice," said Scott.
---

As long as they don't also plaster his evil grin on every painted orange graphic, he might be right.

As a whopping $8,800, this is hardly a camel-breaking straw, I recognize. But at a time when the governor is threatening to veto so much infrastructure spending with the capable to make better colleges, not to mention his ridiculous rejection of high-speed rail funding, this is just foolish vanity.

And no, the signs do not have a former governor's name on them now.

Let's just hope we have the budget to take his name off these signs in 2014, or sooner.

Remember 2000

So much time has passed since the 2000 elections, it can be easy to forget the great upset to American democracy which gripped the nation's attention not so long ago. But one person I suspect has not forgotten is Sen. Bill Nelson. If Gov. Rick Scott ends up signing the election anti-reforms passed out of the Legislature this year, we can count on Nelson pushing for a full investigation in the courts.

Nelson, of course, sent out an email to supporters today promising as much, including a reprint of a New York Times story documenting the vicious bill.

From Nelson's letter:
---
I have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether this bill will result in voter suppression.

Meantime, the bill is on its way to Gov. Rick Scott. Send him a message: Please veto CS/CS/HB 1355.
---

I must say, I don't really understand the upswing for this bill unless Republicans really want to suppress the vote. It reduced the time allowed for early voting, something which has dramatically increased voter participation. It also cracks down on that long-time straw man: voter fraud. You may recall this is that heinous thing that we executing ACORN for, even though there is no evidence it ever has been enough of a problem to turn an election. Sadly, Florida has a long history of the opposite happening, with so many legitimate votes lost and legal voters dropped from voter rolls. And of course, many of the times when fraud has been suspected, it was conservative voters who were the possible culprits. (Ann Coulter, I'm looking at you.)

The truth is, Florida went out of its way after the 2000 election to make sure voting was as accessible a process as possible. New rules were put in for provisional ballots, early voting and absentee voting. It has had such a major effect on elections that they are waged in new ways. Some projections expect half of votes for president next year to be cast before Election Day. I realize that has its own consequences, but the truth of the matter is that it allows far people the chance to participate in democracy than ever before.

The GOP thinks that is a bad thing.

:et's think about that for a second. Republicans figure the greatest threat to their electoral prospects is having too many people vote.

GOPers this year have suggested such draconian measures as fining people $1,000 for turning their voter registration cards in late. Why? State Sen. Miguel de la Portilla says it's because he doesn't want people "gaming the system." Is that what they call voting these days? Gaming the system?

The truth is that Republicans don't want a system that encourages participation. They wnat to discourage voting. They figure it is easier for them to get their energized crazies to the polls and to suppress middle-of-the-road voters because if there was a fair fight, Democrats would win the day. It's that simple.

If I'm wrong, Gov. Scott can prove it. Veto this bill and have a fair fight in the marketplace of ideas. Let everyone vote who wants to vote. It's that easy.

And understand, this is a state that knows something about disenfranchisement. We know what it means to question if the results an election were reached fairly. We know the need for trust in the final tallies. And we don't want any doubt over whether some voters were turned away unfairly or some ballots thrown out for the wrong reasons.

And we will never forget.

A Restoration of Sanity

It has felt strange ever since the news broke, celebrating the death of somebody on the other side of the world. Yet, here we all are, undeniably satisfied with the outcome of this very long wait. But the question remains, what now?

I for one always thought the worst damage done to America by the 9-11 attacks wasn't the loss of life that day, though that was certainly terrible enough, but in the offset of America's psyche. A national paranoia overcame the United States, and we started seeing terrorists in the shadows and threats in the tides. Many national disasters since that day in 2001 have claimed the terrorist attacks, but none has struck such fear in the nation. Next thing you know, we're convinced a desert fiefdom is plotting to nuke us all and we have waged a war in Iraq. And 10 years after the attacks, we continue to engage in Afghanistan.

I have read much punditry today suggesting, of course, that this "resolve in Afghanistan" is why we got Osama last night. But if I may humbly note, that argument also suggests the ultimate mission of that action has been completed today. The head of Al Quaeda, however symbolic, has been cut off. Will a thousand Osama's grow in his place? Perhaps, and if so, we must deal with that. But this operation is over. It no longer makes sense to occupy Afghanistan, and we need to leave this nation to govern itself.

Which brings me to my hope for American foreign policy as whole. We need right now to move beyond the hawkish hypnosis which the 9-11 terrorists put us under when they attacked so long ago. We must engage once more in multilateralism, and celebrate the possibilities for people around the world instead of looking to crush them in some misdirected attempt at revenge.

I haven't written much on Libya here, in part because I am normally focused on Florida politics but also because I am personally uneasy about our presence there right now. I don't think it is helpful for America right now to drive the ouster of another Arab leader, but if we are assisting a revolution with the support of the Arab League?

In part, it has been hard to ration out my own feelings because I feel so frustrated by America's overreaches in the wake of 9-11. When our national leaders felt entitled to invade any nation in some form of retribution, I developed a great sensitivity to the effect our actions had on perception of the entire world. Even those of us who opposed the war in Iraq were impacted by 9-11 because it seemed the starting point to modern interaction abroad.

I plan to look at Libya with more sober vision now, and hope everyone around the world will do the same. I also hope those in the United States so gripped by fear of attack can move beyond the tragedy exacted a decade ago and see value in engaging a world which has evolved when we were too blinded by rage to notice.

The era of 9-11 is over. I don't want to dwell on what happened afterward, who made it happen or whether it was a rightful means to an end. We are at that end now.

Justice has been done. Osama is dead. Now, let's turn the ghost of 9-11 away as well.