Could the Florida state senate drive 55?

Sometimes, celebrities from other fields get into politics. It's not unheard of and, often, it's a logical step from name recognition in another pursuit to being elected to office. Occasionally, those celebrities come from sports, as when former FSU and NFL football star Peter Boulware ran unsuccessfully for the state House as a Republican in 2008.

But now another even more prominent name has surfaced in a Tampa-area state Senate district...and this time, he's a Democrat.

Derrick Brooks [(right)] earned a reputation as a dominant linebacker and fearsome tackler for the Buccaneers.

But could he bring down a Republican opponent in a state Senate race?

Some Florida Democrats think so, and they're courting him to run for the District 12 state Senate seat.

When asked about it, Brooks said this: "I'm not at liberty to talk about that right now."

When pressed, he said that ever since then-Gov. Jeb Bush appointed him to the FSU Board of Trustees, people have questioned him about his political aspirations. If he does run, he said, it won't be a secret. "I'll let everyone know," he said.

"It's an interesting proposition, isn't it?" said Susan Smith, who chairs the campaign committee for the Hillsborough County Democratic Party.

(Yes, that's the Florida Progressive Coalition's own Susan Smith quoted there!)

So far, no Democrat has declared for the District 12 seat, currently held by Republican Victor Crist, who is term-limited out. As an FSU trustee and a well-known figure in the Tampa area -- not only for his gridiron exploits but also for having started a successful charter school and being an outspoken advocate on education issues -- Brooks certainly is an attractive option for the Democrats. Will he run? Only time will tell ... but I'm wagering that he will.

Teabagger hate splinters GOP

As has been well-chronicled here and elsewhere, last April in Pensacola I witnessed the Tea Party (or "teabagger") movement firsthand, up close and personal. Although it was clear that the teabaggers' denials of opposition to President Obama and their insistence that they were "nonpartisan" were utter bullshit, I never really experienced "hatred," at least beyond a few boos once the mouth-breathers figured out what I was up to.

That's beginning to change, though, and more and more, teabaggers are revealing their true colors: hate, anger, racism, and lies. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Chicago last month, where Midge and Dan Hough sought to tell Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) the tragic story of their daughter-in-law, Jenny.

Jenny was a healthy 24-year-old pregnant mother this summer. Now she was dead, along with her unborn child, both symbols of the failure of our country's healthcare system.

But when Midge told the story to the people gathered at the town hall meeting, she was jeered, mocked and laughed at. They didn't believe her, or didn't care. Midge still told Jenny's story, and her bravery shines in a YouTube video of the event, which now clocks in at well over 100,000 views and functions as a symbol of what the tea party movement has become.

[...]

The organizer of a splinter group called the Chicago Tea Party Patriots, Catherina Wojtowicz, insisted that the story was a fake, calling the couple "Obama operatives" in an e-mail. Even after a local paper verified Jenny's story, she hounded the Houghs with hateful e-mails and insisted that their story was an "isolated incident" that shouldn't have any bearing on the healthcare debate.

Midge said she "tried to appeal to her in those ugly, ugly e-mails."

"Could she understand that we were grieving?" Midge recalled asking in one e-mail exchange with Wojtowicz. "She laughed in the e-mail. She said she didn't think they were hard enough on me" at the Lipinski town hall meeting.

After Keith Olbermann featured Catherina Wojtowicz as his "Worst Person" in a regular segment of his show Countdown, the segment showed up on the Tea Party Patriots' Web site under the headline "Catherina Wojtowicz Earns Title."

"That actually sickens my stomach," Midge said when she heard about the promotion of the video. In her next breath, however, she said she wasn't exactly surprised.

"I've never seen so much hate in one room in my whole life," she said. Wistfully, she added, "I wish that they had Jenny's memorial video up there."

Though these fringe tea party activists are using Jenny's story to promote themselves, it doesn't make the Houghs second-guess their decision to bring attention to them. They say they're glad that they can show "people on the fence" about healthcare just how "radical" and "unhinged" the tea party groups can be.

"If my hurting accomplishes that, I'm OK with it," Midge said.

Though the Internet has brought threatening e-mails, angry comments and viewers flagging their videos about Jenny as "fake" on YouTube, it has also rallied support for the Houghs. Along with the education and advocacy efforts of the Illinois Campaign for Better Health Care and publicity for Jenny's story provided by Women's International News, Midge spoke of the "angels on Twitter" who have helped connect them to others active in the healthcare reform effort.

Furthermore, the same anonymity that allows hateful comments to spew forth more easily also provided the Houghs with their own silent partner. Someone anonymously created a Web site at CatherinaWojtowicz.com that highlights how the Tea Party Patriots' spokesperson has attacked the Houghs and others who don't share her view of reality. The site has no proprietary information, except that the owner is offering the URL up for auction, with the proceeds of the URL sale destined for the National Association of Free Clinics.

Not only do the teabaggers apparently feel no compassion or remorse (making them, I'm forced to point out, something less than human), they even think the Republican Party has abandoned them -- even though the GOP has flung itself farther to the right than any sensible observer could have imagined. More often than not, teabaggers are putting up their own candidates from the fringe right to challenge mainstream GOP nominees -- where, in a clear indication that the electorate sees right through the charade, the teabaggers are suffering ignominious defeats. But they go on defiantly: indeed, right here in Florida, the teabaggers actually have registered their own political party, bastardizing the Declaration of Independence in the process. (At least the forked tongue on its logo, above right, is appropriate.)

No one is (or should be) denying that these people have a right to air their opinions. But when their positions rival those of neo-Nazis and avowed racists in their vile hatred, one has to question the societal value, or even relevance, of those positions. But the silver lining, if there is one, must be that they're going to immolate themselves in their extremist values, and likely take the Republican Party as we know it (or knew it) with them.

Paula Hawkins (1927-2009)

It may seem odd to longtime readers of Blast Off! to see an obituary to a Republican here, let alone a fairly favorable one. But I have personal reminiscences of Paula Hawkins, who died on Friday at the age of 82, and while I no longer agreed with her politically, I always thought of her as a good Floridian and a fine person.

Hawkins (right, with President Reagan and iconic Florida congressman Claude Pepper) served one term in the U.S. Senate and it happened to coincide with my junior and senior year in high school in Broward County. At the time, I was a loyal Republican (like my parents), and although I wasn't old enough to vote, I supported Hawkins and many of her positions, which were colored significantly by her Mormon faith. I have met many members of Congress over the years, but Paula Hawkins was the first: I met her while participating in the Close Up government studies program in Washington, D.C., in 1983, and I remember her as charming and informative without being condescending to a bunch of kids. She invited us to visit the Florida House, a Capitol Hill residence owned by and dedicated to the people of Florida doing business in or touring the nation's capital, and I remember marveling at (of all things) the free orange juice available there. I regularly stopped by the Florida House, America's only "state embassy, even as a D.C.-area resident in the late '80s and I always credited Sen. Hawkins with bringing it to my attention.

Paula Hawkins was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who once described herself as "feminine" as opposed to "feminist" and who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment as contributing to the "downfall of the father's responsibility to support the family." Nevertheless, I always respected her and am sorry to witness the death of yet another icon of my childhood.

Crist: backpedalling from Obama as fast as he can

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that President Obama was making a two-day trip to Florida and the state's governor didn't know about it. But that's Charlie Crist's story and he's sticking to it:

Gov. Charlie Crist is a busy man, trying to do his job as Florida's chief executive and run for a U.S. Senate seat at the same time.

But it surprised Tallahassee reporters when the governor said he didn't know President Barack Obama was in the state Monday to honor sailors and Marines at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, less than 200 miles from the Capitol.

"Where was he?" Crist asked Tuesday. "First I've known of it."

While the president was saluting the nation's fighting men, Crist was visiting the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood for a 40th anniversary celebration with tribal leaders.

[...]

Crist got a second chance to talk about his decision to ignore Obama's visit, but instead said again he wasn't aware of the Jacksonville stop.

"Explain that comment? Is it unclear?" Crist responded after being asked a couple of hours later following a Cabinet meeting. "I didn't know that he was in the state."

Asked a third time, Crist said he was aware that Obama was coming, but didn't know the itinerary.

White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai said Tuesday that Crist's office was notified of the president's Florida visit.

Obama was in Arcadia on Tuesday to announce $3.4 billion in spending for the nation's power transmission system to foster new technologies and compared it to the development of the national highway system a half century ago.

Crist said he didn't join Obama because of Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, although he rescheduled an earlier Cabinet meeting to travel 400 miles to join Obama at the February rally in Fort Myers.

Bullshit. Gov. Crist certainly knew the president was visiting the state -- in fact, he contradicted himself when he answered the third question above. And people wonder why Crist is losing ground to Marco Rubio.

The governor is trying desperately to extricate himself from the mess he created for himself with the wingnuts who control the GOP in Florida when he accepted federal stimulus money and appeared with the president in February. But when he pulls stunts like this, it just makes him look petty and equivocal.

Heckuva job, Charlie. You just keep digging, now, y'hear?

Opt-out: still a bad idea for Florida

Normally I don't re-run blog posts, but in light of the announcement today by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Noballs) that the Senate would move forward with the "public option with opt-out" on health care reform, I think it's important to reiterate what I said on October 8: Florida will opt out of any federal health care scheme if it is allowed to do so via legislation. I believed it then and I see no reason to change my position now.

Below is my explanation, as it appeared on this blog 18 days ago. You also may wish to listen to today's edition of Blast Off! Radio, now archived for your convenience, in which I go into further detail on why opt-out is bad for Florida.

---

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Drill here, drill now, you're dumb

As you know if you've been reading Blast Off! for a while, I do a lot of driving around Florida. And in doing so, I see a lot of bumperstickers. Now, while the morons who still display Bush-Cheney '04 stickers barely outpace those who have removed Huggy Bear's name from their McCain-Palin '08 stickers for sheer stupidity (Palin? You really think that uninformed, batshit crazy woman is qualified to lead anything, let alone the United States?), the stickers that really piss me off are the ignorant "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" ones that advocate drilling for oil just a few miles off Florida's Gulf coast. It's just another example of wingnuts believing what they hear on Fox News.

Look, the simple fact is this: even if we permitted offshore drilling immediately, there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support the notion that prices would drop quickly. In fact, according to the federal government's own Energy Information Administration -- back in 2008, under a Republican president (so don't give me that "socialist/Marxist/evil Obama" crap) -- recognized that there would be no significant impact on crude oil (and thus gasoline) prices until 2030 -- more than two decades from now. So "Pay Less" is just another pipe dream of the Right ...

But isn't it still a good idea to go ahead and drill to save the country money in 20 years? Well, sure, if you want Florida to endure the kind of messes that they've had to deal with in Australia and the Pacific Northwest. And while it wasn't from the failure of an offshore oil rig, the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska reminds us that even 20 years later (PDF), the environmental impact of an oil spill still cannot be calculated fully.

The people who have those annoyingly ignorant stickers on their cars are being sold a bill of goods by Republicans -- as usual. GOP leaders who are beholden to Big Oil and the industries that rely on it -- auto makers in particular -- will do anything to promote America's continuing dependence on oil -- foreign or domestic, it makes no difference, for it's all destructive to the environment. After all, if we don't need oil and gasoline, then Big Oil and their cronies suffer financially ... and Republicans can't stand the thought of that happening. So the sticker-bearers driving around in their monstrous SUVs are merely pawns in a game where the real players -- Republican leaders -- don't care about them or their homes. They just want the flow of dollars to keep coming.

A responsible energy policy would lower our dependence on all oil -- not just foreign oil, which is the mantra of drilling advocates -- by encouraging research and development of alternate fuel sources. Why we in the "Sunshine State" don't have a viable plan for solar energy, I have no idea -- unless maybe, just maybe, it's because Republicans have controlled the state for over a decade now.

I strongly urge you to join me in supporting Progress Florida's campaign to share with state Senate president Jeff Atwater (R-North Palm Beach) the importance of keeping the rigs off of Florida's coastline. He needs to be reminded that it's a simple risk-benefit analysis -- and any realistic potential benefit of offshore drilling is far too small to justify the risk of permanently damaging Florida's fragile coastal ecosystem.

Maurice Ferre: GOP plant?

There's an old saying: where there's smoke, there's fire.

Former Miami mayor Maurice Ferre's recent, sudden, and somewhat unexpected entrance into the Democratic U.S. Senate primary race in Florida to take on presumptive frontrunner Kendrick Meek is generating a lot of smoke around the state ... mostly because of the curious company Ferre keeps.

Never mind the error-prone, amateurish campaign announcements, like Ferre's "premature election" email last week or another email I received the other day that boldly declared (quoting the campaign's own press release), "The Ferre Campaign announced fundraisers in Miami, Fishers Island, San Juan, New York City, Los Angeles, Denver and Sante Fe." (Um, Maurice ... it's Santa Fe. "Santa" as in Claus. "Saint" in Spanish -- a language with which you should be quite familiar. Plus, Santa Fe is in New Mexico, not Florida ... which reminds me, only two of those five fundraisers are actually in, you know, the state you want to represent in Congress.)

No, there's more than badly written emails here. For one thing, Maurice has an influential friend in longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone, a resident of Miami. Stone, the architect of (among other things) the infamous "Willie Horton" ads for George H.W. Bush in 1988 that effectively derailed Michael Dukakis' candidacy, actually is an old pal of mine, too -- I neglected to follow up on it here at the blog (and I wish I had), but a year ago when I did my on-air pre-election pundit gig for the European cable network Sky News, I went mano-a-mano (psst, Maurice ... that's Spanish, too!) with the estimable Stone on continent-wide television, analyzing political advertising -- a bit of a David vs. Goliath scenario, sure, but I didn't totally crap my pants or anything.

Anyway, Adam Smith of The Buzz delved into the Stone-Ferre connection a few days ago:

I didn't take Miami resident Stone especially seriously when he predicted months ago that another Democratic U.S. Senate candidate would emerge and very likely beat Kendrick Meek for the nomination. So when former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre jumped in, I wondered about his relationship with Stone, who has a reputation for being in the middle of bizarre political theatrics- from the "Brooks Brothers riots" that shut down the Miami-Dade recount in 2000 to the Al Sharpton presidential campaign in 2004.

"Roger Stone is a friend of mine for many, many years, and he has been for many years an adviser...He talked to me about this race about a year ago and said you need to keep an eye on this race,'' said Ferre, who also stressed that Stone is not advising or directly involved in his campaign.

Stone - who has previously worked alongside several of Ferre's Democratic consultants - said the same thing: "I'm a Republican. I'm not switching sides." Stone said he backs Charlie Crist, even if it doesn't always seem that way. "Maurice Ferre is a very old friend of mine with whom I have strong regard. I urged him to start looking at this race before Charlie Crist was a canddiate...I have always believed that Democratic nomination could be worth having for a candidate for broad appeal."

"Stone is not advising or directly involved in his campaign." Okay. Indirectly, though? It would be irresponsible not to speculate....

But wait -- there's more. Ferre's campaign manager, Todd Wilder, had worked on Rod Smith's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2006, but after Jim Davis won the primary, Wilder switched over to support Charlie Crist through a 527 (in Florida, they're known as "ECOs, " or "electioneering communications organization") called the "Coalition for Bipartisan Progress" (CBP) However, not only did Wilder's group support the GOP candidate -- Crist -- in 2006, but subsequently they've been in bed with a lot of other right-wing groups with oxymoronic names like "Families for Conservative Values" and "People for Integrity in Government." So Wilder raised money for Charlie Crist and now he's managing Ferre's campaign for the Democratic Senate nomination ... where the GOP nominee is none other than Charlie Crist? Where there's smoke ....

Seriously, this raises significant issues about the Ferre campaign. What is the significance, if any, of Ferre's connection to a major GOP strategist, Roger Stone? And why is a Crist supporter managing Ferre's Senate campaign -- a campaign in which, if he won the Democratic nomination, he would face Crist in the general election?

You don't suppose they're trying to soften up Kendrick Meek for what is likely to be a hard-fought nail-biter of a general election, do you?

Well, all I can say is, where there's smoke ....

Stuff you may have missed

I keep saving little bits of tid to use on the blog and then I manage to let it go because more timely things come up. Please allow me to clear my saved browsers and hit you with some knowledge about, well, how deranged the Right is in this country and this state.

First, everyone should read this op-ed by Neal Gabler, "Politics as Religion in America," from the October 2 Los Angeles Times. In it, Gabler neatly deconstructs why the wingnuts continue to push their destructive agenda even in the face of all factual evidence and sense to the contrary: they don't see it as politics anymore, but as a religion -- they believe the things Rush and Glenn and Sean and related gasbags say as a matter of blind faith:

When politics becomes religion, however, policy too becomes a matter of life and death, as we have all seen.

That is one reason our founding fathers opted for a separation of church and state. They recognized that religion and politics could coexist only when they occupied different domains. Most denominations, which preach and practice tolerance, have rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Religious groups may have found a community of interest with a political party to further their aims; they have not, by and large, sought to convert the political system into a religious one. Until now.

The tea-baggers who hate President Obama with a fervor that is beyond politics; the fear-mongers who warn that Obama is another Hitler or Stalin; the wannabe storm troopers who brandish their guns and warn darkly of the president's demise; the cable and talk-radio blowhards who make a living out of demonizing Obama and tarring liberals as America-haters -- these people are not just exercising their rights within the political system. They honestly believe that the political system -- a system that elected Obama -- is broken and only can be fixed by substituting their certainty for the uncertainties of American politics.

As we are sadly discovering, this minority cannot be headed off, which is most likely why conservatism transmogrified from politics to a religion in the first place. Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.

So, no, it's not you. They really don't care that facts have a liberal bias. They'd rather believe their High Priests of Prevarication.

Meanwhile, here in America's Wang™, our old friend Jeb! Bush recently threw a little hissy fit because those mean American people keep picking on his big brother and they should just stop because he's been out of office for a whole 8½ months (or, as Fox News douchebag host Brian Kilmeade distorted said, "ten months" (emphasis added)):

KILMEADE: It’s been 10 months. Should Leader Hoyer be looking backwards, and is he accurate?

BUSH: I was on the plane coming up to Washington yesterday, and I heard someone complaining that their child’s acne was because of George Bush. Of course, last week the Olympics didn’t come to Chicago — that was my brother’s fault. And at some point, people are going to have to put on their big-boy pants and assume responsibility for the great challenges and opportunities our country has. I don’t know how much longer leaders — responsible leaders in Congress — can continue to say these things.

Well, Jeb!, excuuuuuuuse us if it takes longer than 8½ months to undo the eight disastrous years your brother had to fuck things up. I mean, think of it like the eight years you had to drive Florida into the ground, except we still have to wait another year-plus before our cleanup crew (led by Alex Sink) can get to work. It takes a while, y'know?

No, Jeb!, I guess you wouldn't know. Seriously, it's unconscionable to hear the same people whine "why hasn't Obama fixed the economy yet?" (or whatever the issue may be) and in the next breath speculate whether the Dow Jones hitting 10,000 is indicative of a "Bush recovery." You can't have it both ways, folks.

But it sure is hard to dissuade the religious zealots of the Church of Batshit Crazy.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Florida Democrats, health care, equality, and more

It's been a big week both in Florida and nationally for Democrats and especially the progressive (or liberal, if like me you're still okay with that label) side of the party. Today on Blast Off! Radio, we'll take a look back at The Week (And Weekend) That Was with a veritable plethora of interesting and illuminating topics.

For starters, right here in America's Wang™, the state Democratic Party held its convention this past weekend in Orlando, and I attended along with hundreds of my closest friends. A lot happened at the convention, and we'll recap some of the highlights on the show -- including the emergence of the Netroots Coalition as an important and well-regarded "force" in the party structure; the debate between Florida's Democratic candidates for Attorney General, Dave Aronberg and Dan Gelber; and of course the 2009 Florida Netroots Awards (and the understandable but needless controversy that seems to have sprung up around them).

But it wasn't just about Florida this past week. We'll discuss the latest "compromises" in the battle for meaningful health care reform and why Florida is likely to be screwed if either "opt-out" or "opt-in" passes. We'll also talk about the weekend's National Equality March in Washington (and in cities around the country) and why it's all about love ... and what, if anything, is the impact of the president's "announcement" Saturday that he will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell? And we'll mention the craze that's sweeping the nation (or at least Twitter) -- the "twammogram," and why it's making a difference in women's lives during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As always, you make the show work, with your calls, chats, emails, tweets, etc. How do you listen and become involved, you ask? It's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please make plans to join me this afternoon for a Blast Off! Radio chock full of facts and fun. You'll be glad you did!

UPDATE (1:01 pm 10/12/09): Trying something a little new today: a new Blast Off! Radio theme song! I hope it works ... technical challenges are not my strong suit ... so tune in and find out!

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Premature election?

Got an email overnight from the Maurice Ferre 2010 campaign. He's the former Miami mayor who somewhat belatedly has tossed his hat into the ring for the open U.S. Senate seat next year.

Here's the email, in its entirety save for a curious link to an op-ed Ferre had published in the Miami Herald last month:

With Florida not getting our fair share back from Washington, Florida needs a pro not a rookie in the US Senate says Democratic US Senator MAURICE FERRE

Um, you're not a senator yet, Mr. Ferre -- nor, I might add, are you particularly good at punctuation. But good luck with that ....

"Opt-out" compromise: a bad idea for Florida

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Building the perfect spine?

In the last week or so, we're seeing some curious behavior from certain Democrats in Congress. Formerly a largely meek and subservient species, they're beginning to show -- finally -- that they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. And by "it," I mean the unwarranted power of Republicans to control debate and legislation when they're not only a minority, but a significantly diminished minority at that. Whether it's Florida's own Rep. Alan Grayson sticking it to the GOP over their so-called health care plan, which basically is "Don't Get Sick, And If You Do, Please Die Quickly," or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) finally showing some cojones, the Democrats are becoming more empowered, and it's nice to see.

Maybe Democrats are finally sick and tired of the constant right-wing drumbeat in the mainstream corporate media ... maybe they're sick of idiots like Glenn Beck and Rep. John Boehner (R-Orange Ohio) and the Sunday morning news shows' darling, Sen. John McCain (R-Shady Rest Nursing Home Ariz.), having their say time and time again without any recognition of what the majority of Americans favors ... but whatever the reason, I can sense a subtle change in direction. Sure, we've a long way to go yet, and on issues like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, particularly here in America's Wang™, the legal discrimination against thousands of citizens based on their sexual orientation, we're nowhere near resolution. But we're starting to move in the right direction ... and that direction, fortunately, is left.

We'll be talking about the Democrats' newfound spine on today's Blast Off! Radio, and as always, your participation is not only welcome, it's encouraged. Here's how to listen and be involved:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

We'll talk about other issues, too -- like the NRA's attempt to intimidate mayors of American cities and the latest boneheaded appointment by Florida governor Charlie Crist -- and we'll take a look ahead to next weekend's Florida Democratic Party convention in Orlando, where I'll be a panelist for one session. But let's take some time today to celebrate the fact that Democrats are standing up and being heard.

You can be heard, too -- please join me this afternoon to do just that.

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Crist's PSC appointee owns bar that exploits women

There have been very few politicians in recent memory as tone-deaf as Florida governor Charlie Crist. Does he have no idea what he's doing? Doesn't he do background checks, or give any consideration to how things look? It's one thing to say "I don't care what other people think" ... but it's another entirely to do so when you're governor of America's fourth-largest state and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Not long after Gov. Crist essentially appointed himself to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez (by installing his longtime crony and political clone, George LeMieux), the Guv has made another highly questionable decision, appointing Pensacola accountant Benjamin "Steve" Stevens to the state's Public Service Commission.

Stevens has come under fire for part ownership of Rick's Cabana Lounge, a bar in Cantonment, near Pensacola. Crist critics have circulated ads from the lounge which promote "Lingerie Fantasy Fests" and "Dominatrix Night." The governor called the campaign to discredit Stevens "really despicable."

"They're doing it because they're frustrated, because they can't raise rates," he said, noting he chose Stevens because "he's an honest man and he's trying to earn a living." The PSC has been besieged by allegations that commissioners and staff members are too close to the utilities.

Stevens did not respond to requests for comment but Rep. Dave Murzin, a Pensacola Republican and chairman of the PSC Nominating Council, defended him.

"If anybody in the political process thinks owning a bar is a really bad thing and they wouldn't support a candidate because of that, then we've got problems," he said.

Murzin -- who said he has never been in Rick's Cabana Lounge -- said he has accepted campaign contributions from the Florida Institute of CPAs. Stevens was president of the organization from June 2008 to June 2009.

Since 2002, Murzin has accepted $7,000 in contributions from the group's political committees. The committees gave a total of about $309,000 to candidates during that time.

Rep. Murzin, I don't believe the issue here is that "owning a bar is a really bad thing." But you Republicans who are in charge of so much in Florida (which is why our education system blows, why our economy is in the crapper, etc.) need to understand that actions have consequences. You can't tout yourselves as the "family values" party and then have your party's governor appoint people to office who make their living in large part by exploiting women. (Yes, I realize that most Republicans have little regard for women -- or, in the case of women Republicans, little regard for themselves -- but that doesn't excuse them from accountability.) That's the issue, Rep. Murzin -- not owning a bar, but saying one thing and doing another ... something you Republicans are oh, so good at doing.

In fact, Gov. Crist, what's "really despicable" is that you would hitch your political wagon yet again to a person who exercises poor professional judgment. Stevens is entitled to earn a living, sure -- but next time you want to wave the "family values" banner, just remember that one of your most prominent allies is making his money -- and his reputation -- on "Dominatrix Night" at a rural northwest Florida bar. Heckuva job, Charlie.

Florida GOP Police Blotter #14: Top GOP fundraiser/donor indicted for fraud

I never get tired of seeing Republican "leaders," especially in Florida, get caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Oh, yes, I know there is corruption on the left side of the aisle, too ... but for every corrupt Democrat you can show me, I'm quite sure I can show you at least a dozen GOP scofflaws.

Today's example of this is Dr. Alan Mendelsohn, a Hollywood ophthalmologist who has been charged with hindering a state investigation into possible insurance fraud.

[Mendelsohn] surrendered to FBI agents on charges linked to his alleged efforts to thwart a 2000-2005 state investigation into Mutual Benefits Corp., a Fort Lauderdale life insurance company.

An indictment charges Mendelsohn with wire and mail fraud, aiding and abetting wire and mail fraud, and making false statements related to a fraudulent fundraising and lobbying scheme, according to prosecutors.

Mendelsohn raised more than a half-million dollars from Mutual Benefits in 2003 to finance the hiring of a dozen lobbyists and make contributions to lawmakers to stop legislation that would have tightened regulations on the so-called viatical industry. The industry sold life insurance policies of people dying of AIDS and other diseases.

That's quite a laundry list of charges there, Dr. Mendelsohn. What do you suppose all your highly-placed buddies would have to say about that?

Over the past decade, Mendelsohn and his political action committees raised about $2 million from Mutual Benefits, doctors and others for state candidates, including Crist's bid for governor in 2006.

Mutual Benefits gave $525,000 to one of Mendelsohn's PACs, Alliance for Florida's Future, in 2003.

Mendelsohn also was the former legislative director for the Florida Society of Ophthalmology, whose PAC raised more than $1 million over the past decade. Campaign finance records show that money from the ophthalmology PAC was transferred to the Alliance for Florida's Future PAC.

After [Mutual Benefits' former CEO Joel] Steinger turned on Mendelsohn, the ophthalmologist — who had a reputation for boasting of his political connections to GOP lawmakers — tried to help his own defense by working with the FBI starting in the summer of 2007, the sources said.

Mendelsohn claimed that he was able to win over [Gov. Charlie] Crist, [now-U.S. Sen. George] LeMieux, [Crist's general counsel Paul] Huck and others on Steinger's behalf.

To bolster his claim to the FBI, Mendelsohn made a secretly recorded call to LeMieux at the governor's office in July 2007. LeMieux, who served as a deputy attorney general under Crist when he was attorney general, had just managed Crist's successful campaign for governor.

In the call, the doctor spoke about Mutual Benefits and how he had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates and lobbyists to help the firm's legal and political efforts in Tallahassee, sources said.

To LeMieux, the call seemed suspicious, as if Mendelsohn were trying to implicate him, the governor and others, sources said. LeMieux alerted Huck, who called the FBI.

Ah, I see ... they loved the doctor when his dollars were flowing to their campaigns, but as soon as the heat was turned up, they threw him under the bus. Nice.

So, Sen. LeMieux and Gov. Crist (who, contrary to popular belief, are not one and the same) .... you're just going to let your buddy rot on the police blotter? You just don't like him now that he's in trouble?

Figures. Your hands probably are dirty enough as it is.

About the FCAT ... there's good news and there's bad news

Longtime Blast Off! readers know that I'm no fan of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), particularly as it has been used as a measure -- really, the sole measure other than graduation rates -- of the quality of public schools in the state. Well, the good news is that beginning next year, Florida will be evaluating high schools on more criteria than just the FCAT.

The bad news, though, is that the FCAT still will be the sole factor for evaluating lower-grade schools, and it still will carry weight even in the high schools.

The grades will also reflect participation numbers in higher-level courses, scores from end-of-course exams, graduation rates and professional industry certifications earned by students. The way grades are assigned to elementary and middle schools will stay the same.

The outcome will be a more complete picture of how well high schools are preparing students to enter the work world or to pursue higher education, state education officials said.

The changes were approved by the State Board of Education Sept. 15, though they were required by a bill passed in the Florida Legislature in 2008. The old formula, which grades high schools in the state on a scale of F to A, was based on graduation rates and Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores.

“This new legislation is not the result of a dissatisfaction with the FCAT,” said Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Destin. “But, the FCAT only measures the proficiency of half the students in high school. If you look at who takes the FCAT, half the students in a high school take the FCAT, but a school’s grade and academic image is based entirely on the FCAT performance of half the students.”

Look, the problem with the FCAT is that, like any standardized test, it essentially shows how well students do on standardized tests -- not how well a student actually learns or how well a student can apply, or synthesize, learned material in new learning. In other words, it tests a student's ability to memorize stuff and regurgitate it on the day of the test ... period. Having just gone through (and passed) yet another mostly-standardized test myself just a couple of months ago, I know that my retention of the material is, well, limited at this point. The same is true for students who take the FCAT.

I know that standardized tests have their place, and they are a useful (albeit not fully determinative) way of assessing a student's academic performance. But that doesn't translate into an accurate measurement of a school's performance. Sen. Gaetz is half right, in that the FCAT reveals only part of the picture. But he's half wrong, in that it shouldn't be any part of the picture insofar as evaluating schools is concerned. Of course the changes aren't because of "dissatisfaction with the FCAT," Sen. Gaetz! You Republicans have loved the FCAT because it's helped you destroy Florida's public schools -- a longtime goal of former governor Jeb! Bush. You're undoubtedly not dissatisfied with your handiwork.

But at least saner minds are beginning to shed some light on the fact that the FCAT hasn't helped public education in Florida -- it's been detrimental. And any action that limits the test's impact is a step in the right direction.

More stupid from The Land That Time Forgot

Yeah, I'll be talking about the rise of The Stupid in America on Blast Off! Radio tonight, but just to whet your appetite, I found some choice examples in (unsurprisingly) the Northwest Florida Daily News, and specifically the letters to the editor there. The NFDN, which touts itself as "A Freedom Newspaper," proudly proclaims its batshit-crazy wingnuttery ... but, to give credit where credit is due, at least they know their audience.

Two members of that audience had letters published in today's paper. In the first, titled "Race isn't an issue," Patti Thornhill of Crestview argues that if we claim that the ubiquitous (but poorly attended) tea parties are racist because the protesters aren't taking Drunky McStagger to task, well, then we're all wet.

I resent the insinuation of the letter writer (“Late to the party,” Sept. 19) who wondered where the tea party patriots were during the Bush administration. He wrote: “What kind of people are you? I think I know.” If he is implying we’re racists, he is deeply wrong and should apologize.

The fact is, many signs at the D.C. protest denounced George W. Bush as well, including a couple of him with the infamous Joker makeup. I know. I was there.

I assume Ms. Thornhill is referring to the 9/12 fisting party Beckgasm protests in Washington, which she presumably attended. Well, I wasn't there myself (although I had to laugh this weekend when a friend of a friend, who also wasn't there, swore that 1.7 million people attended, rather than the 70,000 reported by D.C. authorities ... if there were that many, why weren't roads and the Metro jammed beyond capacity ... like, say, at the Obama inauguration?), but I did search the Internets for pictures from tea parties criticizing Drunky and -- guess what? -- I couldn't find any. Sure, there may have been one or two ... even "many" (which I guess would be, what, five?) ... but (a) I doubt there were any at all and (b) even if they were, that doesn't negate the inference that most teabaggers are just mad that there's a Scary Black Man in the White House. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to think that a few isolated signs that you can't even prove exist would support the argument that most teabaggers are NOT racists? Ah, wingnut logic ...

Unfortunately, the second letter I want to share with you, titled "A lazy majority" and written (I use that term loosely) by one William J. Roberts of Fort Walton Beach, isn't available online. But I'll transcribe for your entertainment just the opening paragraph, so you get a taste of the kind of stupid on display here:

The writer of "It's not an option" (letter, Sept. 13) wrote that because the Declaration of Independence delineates the right to enjoy life/health, there exists a right to health care. Why, then, aren't food, clothing, shelter and transportation rights? Surely there are more immediate requisites as one pursues liberty and happiness.

Well, Mr. Roberts, let me answer your question as simply as I can: health care is critical to life and must be provided to people by others, unlike food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Food? You can grow your own, hunt, whatever ... clothing -- not necessary to life ... shelter -- again, create your own ... transportation -- also not necessary to life. Jeebus, is it that difficult to figure out? You selfish bastards are so bent on refusing to help your fellow man (didn't I read something about that in the Bible?) that you have to do these logical contortions just to preserve your twisted, insurance-company-enriching status quo. This kind of stupid makes my head hurt.

Besides, we don't look to the Declaration of Independence for any of our rights. Those come from the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the federal government should "promote the general welfare" ... and that undoubtedly includes health care, particularly for those who cannot secure it themselves.

But, you know, I should learn not to argue facts and logic with radical rightists. They'll never learn.

(More to come on tonight's Blast Off! Radio at 7pm Eastern.)

Vern Buchanan needs remedial reading comprehension

I've been puzzled by the strangely detached, surprisingly uninformed tweets lately by U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Sarasota) regarding health care reform. On the one hand, I recognize that Florida hardly lacks for ignorant GOP members of Congress who seem to be unaware of the U.S. Constitution ... but Buchanan seems not to understand the English language -- an especially bizarre concept, considering Buchanan's own xenophobic, pandering call to make English the official language of the United States.

The word in question here -- the one that the erstwhile car dealer who originally won his congressional seat under highly questionable circumstances apparently doesn't comprehend -- is "option." As in "choice" or "selection." OPTION.

Yesterday, Rep. Buchanan tweeted, "If the public plan is so great, why shouldn't members of Congress be required to enroll in the same plan?" The obvious answer -- obvious to anyone with the ability to reason coherently, that is -- would be that no one would be required to enroll in the "public plan," because it would be an option. A choice, which one may make or not make as desired. That's the fundamental idea of an option, and I made that point (in abbreviated form) in my response to the congressman.

But I cut Vern some slack since he didn't use the word "option." That all changed today, though, when ol' Vern cut loose with this nugget of numbskullery:

click image for larger version

Vern ... poor, deluded Vern ... how many times do I have to tell you? A "public option" means you don't have to enroll. Even members of Congress don't have to enroll. And don't give me that crap about Max Baucus' massive FAIL of a bill. That's not a public option in any way, shape, or form.

What this country really needs is single-payer health care, like every other civilized nation on the planet and like the U.S. military and Medicare. Barring that, though, it appears we'll have to settle for a public option. And "option," Vern, means "choice." Everyone can keep their employer-provided coverage, Vern, if they so choose (or opt). But there would be an option (there's that word again!) to elect coverage under the federal health care plan for those who don't have the privilege of employer-provided coverage -- as members of Congress do, I know, and yes, even as I do through COBRA.

It's really not that hard to understand, Vern. It's just a matter of comprehending our country's would-be official language ... a skill you -- and your fellow signatories on that absurd, meaningless resolution -- suddenly seem to be lacking.

Remember "states' rights?" Republicans in Florida do

Students of American history learn that while slavery per sé may not have been a root cause of the Civil War, certainly the dispute over states' rights was a key factor ... and one of those "rights" over which the states fought was slavery. Well, the wingnuts never really have let go of the states' rights argument, which they've applied to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, education issues, gay rights .... and now, the debate over health care reform.

Two Florida legislators have introduced a bill that purportedly would keep the state's employers from having to follow any federal health care system:

Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, and Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, are behind the Florida Health Care Freedom Act. Twenty-four House members, including Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs, are co-sponsors.

Legal scholars question whether such an amendment would have the desired effect, and backers acknowledge the challenge. But they see the measure as consistent with a larger campaign to combat expansion of federal power.

"This amendment draws a line in the sand about socialized medicine," Baker told a crowd of about 60 people at Tucson's Southwest Grill in Clearwater [Sept. 15].

Unlike some public discussions of Obama's plan to revamp health care, the tone of Tuesday's gathering remained civil, though it was certainly spirited. Those gathered overwhelmingly supported the amendment.

"Do you really want to put your life, your health care, into the hands of some weenie up in Washington?" asked Steven F. Burden, a 53-year-old software engineer from Lutz.

Under Obama's proposal, large businesses — those with more than 50 employees — would be required to provide insurance for their employees or pay a fee, and individuals would be required to purchase health insurance. Tax credits would be available to help cover the cost for individuals. Those unable to afford insurance could get hardship waivers.

The proposed amendment seeks to nullify these provisions by barring employers and individuals from being compelled by law to "participate in any health care system."

I guess the idiots who support this proposal, like the above-quoted Mr. Burden (how's that for an appropriate name for someone opposed to health care reform?) would rather have their life and health care in the hands of "some weenie" in an insurance company -- you know, like it is now. Said idiots also are completely ignorant about the law -- again, how is it that people who don't understand the law keep getting elected to make our laws? -- because they obviously fail to understand that, under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, any state legislation in this area would be superseded by federal law. In other words, the bill proposed by Baker and Plakon can have no effect -- by definition. If there's no health care reform, their bill is moot, and if there is, the bill is "preempted" by the federal scheme of legislation.

Hold on, though ... Carey Baker? Where have I heard that name before?

Oh, yeah! Baker is the gun nut who wants to be Agriculture Commissioner ... so he can oversee the gun permitting process! I knew I remembered him from somewhere ....

Anyway, the grandstanding is great red-meat for the radical Republican base, the "21-percenters" who still think Drunky McStagger was a great president, but it's ultimately useless. Kind of like the space Baker and Plakon are taking up in Tallahassee. But, you know, it's just another day at the office for the wingnut-dominated Florida legislature, where "common sense" is a four-letter word.

UPDATE (10:37 am 9/23/09): Here's another historical take on the futility of what Baker and Plakon are trying to do, courtesy of FOBO (Friend of Blast Off!) Ray Seaman of Progress Florida. Nullification fever: CATCH IT!

Is Crist circumventing Florida law on judicial appointments?

Although I think he's a rather genial guy (I've found that to be the case on Twitter, at least), I usually would be loath to agree with U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R-West Miami) on most any issue, except maybe whether to have steak or seafood. But I think we've found one political thing on which we can concur: questioning the actions of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in establishing "shadow panels" to vet possible nominees to the bench:

Former House Speaker Marco Rubio, who is opposing Crist for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination next year, said the panels operate “outside the public light” and have politicized the process.

“It appears the decision is being made to appease certain demographic groups,” Rubio said. “It’s so he can say: 'I appointed judges like you.' ”

Crist spokeswoman Erin Isaac defend the practice.

“To get to know and best assess the legal abilities of candidates, we sometimes engage respected and knowledgeable individuals from the community,” Isaac said.

The Florida Constitution provides for a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), whose members are appointed by the governor. The JNC reviews applications for vacancies on the various state courts and compiles a list of three to six names from whom the governor must appoint the new judge. This is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution (Art. V, sec. 11; Art. V, sec. 20, para. 5 et seq.), and there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of wiggle room. So while the Constitution concededly doesn't address informal advice to the governor, Crist's custom of creating these "shadow panels" arguably takes the process away from the JNC and, therefore, may be unconstitutional. At the very least, it gives the appearance of impropriety in a process that ought to be free from undue interference as much as possible.

I mean, the governor already selects the JNC. Does he really need another layer of sycophantic advisors to help him make these decisions? Marco Rubio wants to know and, frankly, I do, too.

I passed!

Well, for those of you who have been around this sucky blog for the last few months, you know I took some time off to prepare for and take the Florida Bar exam this summer. It was particularly stressful, since I graduated from law school 15 years ago and I hadn't taken a bar exam since 1995 (I'm licensed in two other states) nor practiced law since '96.

Just found out a short time ago that I passed. That's the good news.

The bad news is that, like probably hundreds of people on that list, I passed -- both parts (A and B), in fact -- but I'm not yet authorized to be sworn in. My guess is that they are way behind on the background checks, a conclusion bolstered by the fact that I know at least one person was sent the form to fill out about me twice, even though she filled it out once already.

Of course, the real reason probably is that they aren't sure they want a dirty fucking hippie, formerly clinically depressed near-socialist in the Bar.

But at least I passed. Now if I could only find a job .....

UPDATE (2:26 pm 9/21/09): Finally broke down and called the Board of Bar Examiners. Very pleasant woman answered my call -- I'm sure they're being inundated with questions today. Anyway, she said there would be a "brief explanation" of why I'm not yet able to be sworn in appended to my score report, which I should receive in the mail later this week.

Looking at the results online, though, and extrapolating from the high frequency with which those with file numbers near mine (in the higher numerical range) are not being authorized for swearing-in even though they passed, I'll bet it's because I applied so late. Probably a lot of us late-appliers are experiencing delays in the background checks. Whatever. I've been waiting this long ... what's a few more days ... or weeks?