Mario Diaz-Balart gets it exactly wrong on health care debate

Actually, it wouldn't really be precise to say U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Miami) gets it wrong, when he manages to avoid questions altogether so skillfully.

I'm talking about an interview conducted the other day by Brent Batten of the Naples Daily News, wherein Diaz-Balart was asked to "put himself in a virtual town hall facing supporters of the national health-care reform being supported by the president and Democrats." And I don't know which is worse: Diaz-Balart's gymnastic gyrations in sidestepping the questions or Batten's obsequious ass-kissing in somehow interpreting the sidesteps as direct answers.* Either way, it's just more right-wing hypocrisy and fact-free rationale, both from Congress and the corporate media.

Here, let me give you some examples:

Q. I keep hearing about euthanasia, death panels and “pulling the plug on grandma.” But reading the passage of House Resolution 3200 that people keep citing, beginning on page 424, it talks about advance care planning. Things like living wills and hospice care. It says nothing about forcing people to end their lives early. Isn’t this just a tactic to scare senior citizens into opposing the plan? How do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?

A. “There’s obviously a problem because the Democrats took the language out. We need to at least have hearings on that. It’s obviously a bi-partisan concern. You’re dealing with the government, particularly a government that wants to do all and say all.”

How exactly is Diaz-Balart's answer responsive to Batten's question? We need to have hearings on language that (1) was removed from the bill and (2) was completely misrepresented, mostly by right-wing corporate media (not to mention Sarah Palin) with the acquiescence and, indeed, encouragement of "mainstream" Republicans? Diaz-Balart should be drummed right out of Congress (let alone the GOP) for suggesting such an utter waste of time and resources.

Besides, he clearly failed to answer the question, which was "how do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?" (I did edit out a piece of the answer, but the stuff I removed, which followed the quote shown above, was no more responsive than the above-quoted tripe.) Diaz-Balart never even comes close to addressing the question.

Next ...

Q. A concern seems to be that the government is angling for a single-payer system. You dig out a quote from 2003 in which President Obama says he favors a single-payer system yet he’s said numerous times since then he doesn’t think one will work here. The House plan offers a public option that is just an option. Why do you think that will result in just one payer, namely the government?

A. “Three things. First, Barney Frank. Have you seen the video?” Diaz-Balart asks, referencing a video available on You Tube that shows Frank saying on July 27, “I think if we can get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to get to single payer.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98)

“Another word that comes to mind is ‘Citizens,’” Diaz-Balart continued, referring to Florida’s government-run hurricane insurance option. “Remember the insurer of last resort? Where we are today, it’s essentially the only game in town. Citizens is not actuarially sound, which would be the case (with a government-subsidized health insurance plan). They say the way you have competition is to have a government-run option. Should we have government-run grocery stores? It’s ludicrous on its face. They’re proposing something that would have lower prices through subsidies. It will inevitably lead to government-run health care.”

I'm not sure Diaz-Balart could miss the point, or the question, any more egregiously than he does here. First off, what the hell does Citizens Insurance have to do with health care? Diaz-Balart throws up a superb strawman here, suggesting that the failings of Citizens, as a government-subsidized insurance plan in Florida, somehow are characteristic of all government-subsidized insurance plans. Yet he makes no such claim with regard, say, to Medicare, a government-subsidized insurance plan that bears far more resemblance to the plans currently under consideration by the Obama Administration and Congress than does Citizens. Lovely strawman, Congressman, but your argument is a massive FAIL. (Besides, it's not the least bit responsive to the question, which has to do with the desirability of a single-payer system.)

And the Barney Frank thing? It's a video where, as Batten indicates, Rep. Frank suggests that public option could lead to single payer. But again, Diaz-Balart misses the point, because Barney Frank doesn't speak for Congress. He's one member. Sure, he hopes that a public option someday would lead to single-payer. I do, too. That doesn't mean it's inevitable, and to suggest otherwise, as Diaz-Balart does here, is more of the scare tactics that are practically instinctive acts by Republicans. (Moreover, needless to say, single-payer would be an eminently good thing for America, but I'll leave that for another post.)

(By the way, Congressman Diaz-Balart, you said "three things." What's the third? Did Batten edit it out or did you just forget?)

Republicans, especially in Congress and in the mainstream corporate media (where they are legion), have a charming habit of using strawman arguments like this to dog-whistle their supporters ... bringing up Barney Frank is a sure way to do this because the wingnuts hate that gay congressman from Taxachusetts so very, very much. But ultimately, like nearly all right-wing arguments, it's a lot of talk and very little substance.

So once again we see a wingnut congressman who can't answer questions and who opposes health care reform, well, just because. And we see a wingnut newspaper columnist who will do or say nearly anything to prop up those tired right-wing arguments. And the beat goes on ...

---

* In Batten's own words: "[Diaz-Balart] was happy to do so, responding via telephone with answers specific to the questions asked, as opposed to Congressman Connie Mack, who represents western Collier County and who answered the same questions two weeks earlier with vague generalities about more freedom and less government."

I guess that somehow is different than vague generalities about insurance and death panels, which is what Diaz-Balart gives us.

Cuba libre?

Well, not exactly. But President Obama is making a bold (and long overdue) move by relaxing the restrictions on travel to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, and there is talk of opening up Cuban travel more broadly in the near future. It's a refreshing change from past policy of either acting like Cuba doesn't exist or behaving hostilely towards it.

"The president has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "These are actions he has taken to open up the flow of information."

U.S. officials said Obama hoped the new measures would encourage Cuba's one-party state to implement democratic reforms long demanded by Washington as a condition for removing sanctions imposed after Fidel Castro took power in 1959.

Shares of companies that stand to gain from a thaw in U.S. ties with Cuba soared on the news, led by Canadian mining and energy company Sherritt International, a major player in Cuba's nickel and oil industry, whose stock rose 24.5 percent.

Miami-based cruise operator Royal Caribbean also saw its shares rise on hopes that the No. 2 cruise ship operator and rival Carnival, could sail to Cuba, just 90 miles from the United States.

U.S. telecommunications companies will now be allowed to set up fiber-optic cable and satellite links with Cuba, start roaming service agreements and permit U.S. residents to pay for telecoms, satellite radio and television services provided to people in Cuba, the White House said.

Obama also directed his government to look at starting regularly scheduled commercial flights to Cuba. Air travel between the United States and Cuba is now limited to charter flights.

Predictably, though, Florida politicians on both sides of the aisle are lining up against the decision. Democratic congresspersons Kendrick Meek and Debbie Wasserman Schultz "disagree[] with part of the Administration's new Cuba policy," and Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) talks out of both sides of his mouth, as usual. However, it's the notoriously moronic Diaz-Balart brothers, two of Miami's "Three Hyphenated Stooges," who take their Obama Derangement Syndrome and run with it:

Despite the Cuban dictatorship increasing its repression of pro-democracy activists, torturing countless prisoners of conscience, and refusing to allow human rights activists and observers into the country, President Obama has violated his pledge of January 20 by unilaterally granting a concession to the dictatorship which will provide it with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Unilateral concessions to the dictatorship embolden it to further isolate, imprison and brutalize pro-democracy activists, to continue to dictate which Cubans and Cuban-Americans are able to enter the island, and this unilateral concession provides the dictatorship with critical financial support.

No, you brotherly douchebags, the decision doesn't "provide the dictatorship with critical financial support." It provides real people -- Cubans and Americans -- with an opportunity to visit family and to help the island nation overcome and recover from the Castro regime. Of course, being Republicans, you two wouldn't understand the idea of helping real people, would you?

The idea that the embargo hurts Fidel (and Raul) Castro never really was correct, and it's certainly an antiquated notion now, as Fidel wastes away and Raul is little more than a figurehead. All the embargo has done is keep the Cuban populace from having the ability to help themselves economically. America's shunning of Cuba is anachronistic and essentially useless, at least insofar as the stated goals are concerned.

And you know who gets this, of all people? Florida's GOP U.S. senator, Mel Martinez, himself a Cuban-American:

The announcement today is good news for Cuban families separated by the lack of freedom in Cuba. Likewise the change in remittances should provide help to families in need. Given these changes will benefit the regime in Havana, it would be wise in the implementation to place some reasonable limits on this type of travel and the amounts that can be sent to Cuba.

The President has expressed his commitment to freedom - libertad - for the Cuban people, and policy implementation should advance that objective. To this end, the Administration is right to call on the Cuban government to end the onerous charge of 20 percent on remittances. Lowering remittance charges and allowing travel for Cuban families wishing to see relatives abroad are two steps the Cuban regime could immediately take that would show change in Havana.

Opposition to the president's action here can only be political, because it's certainly not rooted in anything factual or in any realistic foreign policy objectives. I know many Cuban-Americans have long memories. But it's well past time to realize that it's not 1959 anymore.

Huggy Bear to Cuban-American group: I won't meet with you

Spiteful little prick Huggy Bear, in the aftermath of his "joke" about killing Iranians with cigarettes, is finding new and better ways to win friends and influence people. This time, it's the Cuban-American community in Miami.

An advisor to Republican John McCain said that the candidate would not meet with a politically moderate Cuban-American organization because it "embraced" Democrat Barack Obama and his call for overhauling the Bush administration's Cuba policy.

The Cuban American National Foundation [(CANF)] tried to set up a meeting with McCain last month in New Orleans on the same day he was attending a private fundraiser organized by one of the group's directors. The foundation is officially nonpartisan, but many individual members are politically active.

Lobbyist Ana Navarro, a McCain advisor who frequently travels with the campaign, did an interview with WAQI-710 Radio Mambí from New Orleans on June 4, the day after the fundraiser.

"I understand [the foundation] had intended to come to a fundraiser in New Orleans, that they offered a large sum of money in exchange for a private meeting with McCain. They were told no," she said. "I don't like talking about the foundation, because I consider them fairly irrelevant."

She added: "It is obvious they have chosen, they have embraced, they have given a welcome and a forum to Barack Obama -- a man who wants to sit down with Raúl Castro without preconditions. . . . So I don't understand the insistence of the gentlemen in the Cuban American National Foundation in wanting to get together with John McCain when John McCain doesn't want to get together with them."

The McCain campaign did not respond to repeated requests Tuesday for comment.

McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were all invited to the foundation's Cuban Independence Day luncheon in Miami in May. Only Obama appeared, and gave a speech to the group.

This is classic GOP strategery. If you don't agree with the warmongering right-wing rhetoric, you're "irrelevant." If they're our enemies, we won't sit down with them and use diplomacy -- or, in this case, political dexterity -- to negotiate with them. It's asinine, it's childish, and it's the Republican Way.

And, unsurprisingly, Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber, two of the Three Hyphenated Stooges who represent Miami in Congress, are in the thick of the controversy.

CANF president Pepe Hernandez, who planned to go to New Orleans with chairman Jorge Mas Santos, blamed U.S. Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart of Miami for the meeting's collapse.

The two brothers are leading supporters of McCain in Florida and are vehement supporters of the current restrictions on travel and remittances, and Hernandez and Mas Santos are supporting their Democratic challengers. "They are letting their own personal interests undermine the interests of the McCain campaign and the Cuban-American community," Hernandez said.

A spokesman for the Diaz-Balarts denied that they were involved in blocking the meeting, but added that "it makes no sense to give "special treatment to a group that does not represent the Cuban-American community." [sic]

I'm more convinced than ever that the primary qualification to be a Republican politician these days is to be a massive asshole.

My date with Debbie

Okay, so it wasn't a date. It wasn't even so much "with" her as "in her presence." But I did go to hear Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) speak today and, despite an initial setback, I persevered and was able to ask her my question.

First, though, a summary of the event. I arrived early enough to attend a "Count the Votes" press conference headlined by the congresswoman. This turned out to be a bit of a dog-and-pony show, as Rep. Wasserman Schultz was surrounded by a dozen or so well-dressed Democrats armed with signs and flags (right). She delivered her remarks clearly and forcefully, insisting that "we must have fairness in the process" and so the Democratic National Committee must "count the votes from January 29" and allow Florida's delegates to be seated at the convention.

Indeed, the entire thrust of the presser was that no revote was necessary because a record number of Florida Democrats already cast their votes, in our primary-that-didn't-count on January 29. Even when asked directly by a reporter how she would respond to those who stayed away from the polls because they thought their votes wouldn't count, she emphasized the record turnout, not how much larger it might have been had there not been a controversy over the seating of the Florida delegates.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz was complimentary of DNC chair Howard Dean because he has called her as well as Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) to say that he will work toward a solution to this issue. She also stated repeatedly that she believes the two candidates will be able to come to some sort of agreement on this, and she emphatically concluded, "Our delegates will be seated!"

At the luncheon itself, Rep. Wasserman Schultz expanded her remarks beyond the primary debacle, saying that "although it is well known that I support Sen. Clinton, I will work hard for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is." She referred to the "total lack of competence by this [Bush] administration," and she blamed the Republican-dominated legislature for the primary mess, noting that "the Democratic members of the legislature had no choice" but to vote for the January 29 date, as the bill also included the long-sought (and vehemently opposed by Republicans) guarantee of a paper trail in voting, thereby ridding the state of the notorious touchscreen machines. The congresswoman also encouraged those in attendance to work hard for down-ticket races as well, in hopes that we could chip into the 16-to-9 GOP majority in our U.S. House delegation as well as the large majorities the Republicans enjoy in both houses of our state legislature.

As for the revote controversy, Rep. Wasserman Schultz cited three reasons why the nine Florida Democrats in the U.S. House opposed the effort: the possibility of fraud, concerns over an unprecedented privately-funded election, and rushing into what amounted to an electoral "experiment" without enough time to do it properly. She concluded by returning to the theme of a cohesive Democratic Party needing to stand behind whichever candidate is the nominee. "Come off your hardened positions," she said. "Come out of your corners, [because] we've got to come out strong for our Democratic nominee. Now is the time for all Democrats to stand united."

At this point, I have to say something about the ham-handed way the luncheon program itself was run. Even the welcome sign (left) was grossly misspelled -- perhaps that was the venue's fault, as noted by one of my lunch companions, but it still certainly was something that should have been fixed immediately.

I will contact the organization's chairperson personally and will not call her or the organization out by name in this venue, but I have to say that I was angered and appalled by how she -- the chairperson -- dealt with the Q&A session. Rep. Wasserman Schultz indicated her willingness to answer questions, so the chairperson, acting as emcee, called on the first person, who asked her question without incident. I got ready to pose my question, and even stood up for greater visibility ... but the chairperson hijacked the remainder of the Q&A by asking not one, but two questions of her own from the podium, the answers to which took up all the congresswoman's remaining time.

Everyone at my table thought that was very poor form, and it was reminiscent of a similar stunt the chairperson pulled when the organization hosted Rep. Ron Klein (R-Fla.) a few months ago. If you are going to have a Q&A session, do not take it upon yourself to ask the questions if you're in charge. A number of other attendees also wanted to ask questions but likewise were shut out of the process by the chair's egregious actions. Thus, I was unable to ask my question in the public forum I sought.

However, while leaving the site of the luncheon, my friend and I spotted Rep. Wasserman Schultz and her aide waiting for their car, and so, unwilling to let this opportunity pass, I approached the congresswoman, introduced myself in my "meatspace" identity, and identified myself as a blogger with a tremendous amount of respect for her voting record and her performance in Congress on behalf of Florida. However, I continued, "is it not counter to your responsibilities as co-chair of the Red-to-Blue program in the DCCC to openly refuse to support the Democratic candidates who oppose Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers in Miami?"

Before I get into the answer, I want to tell you this: Rep. Wasserman Schultz and I chatted about my question for a good ten minutes (while her aide silently fumed behind me, I later learned), and she was entirely gracious, candid, and respectful of me as a person and as a blogger. I didn't feel, as I have at times in the past when talking with lawmakers, that I was getting the brush-off; she was genuine and engaging, and she took great care to respond fully to my concerns.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz told me that she has raised money actively as co-chair of Red-to-Blue on behalf of candidates all over the country. Indeed, she said, she expended a tremendous amount of political capital in Washington and in Florida to help get Ron Klein elected in 2006. Now, in 2008, she has had to deal with the "difficult position" of being in charge of the DCCC effort but also being friends with the three Republicans in Miami -- "I'm especially close to Mario [Diaz-Balart]," she said, "since our days in the state legislature, but I count all [three] of them as friends." And so, while the congresswoman believes the Democratic candidates in those districts -- Annette Taddeo, Joe Garcia, and Raul Martinez (for whom she said she actually has worked in his race against Lincoln Diaz-Balart) -- are strong, she "just can't cross that line personally" to campaign actively against her friends. It would be too hard to criticize them (I said, "well, don't criticize them, just say positive things about the Democratic candidates," and she replied, "I am!") publicly, and although she has disagreed with them on innumerable issues -- she shared an anecdote about trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to persuade Ros-Lehtinen to vote in favor of overriding Drunky McStagger's* veto of SCHIP -- she prefers to focus her attention on other House races and let other members of her coalition take on the three Miamians.

I was impressed by Rep. Wasserman Schultz's understanding of blogs and bloggers. "I have read some of the bloggers' comments," she told me, imploring me to "please help get them off my back," as she seemed to be frustrated by the coverage she's received lately in the blogosphere. As she finally made her way to the car, to her aide's conspicuous relief, she grasped my arm and said, "Thank you for asking me about this to my face." I must admit that I was moved by her sincerity and her appreciation for my forgoing the flame war in favor of seeking an answer directly from her.

So, to those (including myself) who would criticize Rep. Wasserman Schultz for her decision to stand aside in the three Miami races, I can say only that while I still do not necessarily agree with her decision, I can respect her reasons for making that decision, and I understand that her Red-to-Blue group has other members who can fight those particular battles in her stead. [See second update below.] Heck, after today, she might even be my "congressional crush" again ...

UPDATE (6:36 pm 3/18/08): Based on my conversation with her today, I have every reason to believe that Rep. Wasserman Schultz at some point will read this post. So, if you have an opinion about her decision not to campaign against the three Miami Republicans, I encourage you to share it (respectfully, I hope) in Comments below.

UPDATE (2:05 pm 3/19/08): With so many folks coming over from Daily Kos, I think I'd better clarify my conclusion above, lest you all think I am giving Rep. Wasserman Schultz a free pass on this.

While I respect her reasons for her decision not to campaign against her friends, and I appreciate her sincerity and candor in telling me about it, I believe that if Rep. Wasserman Schultz's friendships mean that much to her, she should step aside and allow someone else to lead the Red-to-Blue effort. Even though she said others in the DCCC would be handling those Miami races, if she cannot be an effective leader of the effort, she should not stay in that role.

UPDATE (7:34 am 3/20/08): Perhaps this short post will give you a better idea of my feelings on the matter.

---

* My affectionate and descriptive term for the "president," not hers.

An odd couple

You know, I don't mean to gang up on Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) just a couple of days before I plan to meet her -- and ask her some pointed questions -- at a luncheon. But I just don't understand what her deal is. First, she said she won't campaign against the Three Hyphenated Stooges -- Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, all Republicans from Miami -- despite the fact that she is the co-chair of the DCCC's Red-to-Blue effort.

Now, her personal allegiances are really interfering with her ability to do her job politically, as she recently said, "I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office."

You mean the same Ileana Ros-Lehtinen whose votes you consistently (and correctly) have opposed in Congress, Debbie? You mean the same Ros-Lehtinen whose idea of foreign policy openly includes assassination? Are we talking about the same person here?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: friendships are fine off the field or, in this case, the floor of the House. But when it comes time for you to do your job, Debbie, you need to set those feelings aside for the good of the country. Your constituents didn't elect you for your friends; they elected you for your values. Don't sacrifice those values for the sake of a friendship. Do you really think "Killeana" would do that if the situation were reversed? I highly doubt it.

Maybe the DCCC needs to bring a new Red-to-Blue co-chair in from the bullpen ...

Oh, Debbie, what are you thinking?

No, I'm not talking about the blue eyeliner in this picture ... I'm talking about your unabashed refusal to campaign against "your friends" Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers, all Republicans, despite the fact that you're the freaking chair of the DCCC's "Red to Blue" effort. And Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Miami) is joining you in sitting this one out:

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.

The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.

But Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their ties to the three Republicans are personal as well as professional: Both served in the state Legislature with Mario Diaz-Balart and say they work in concert with all three on South Florida issues.

You know, it's possible to oppose friends and still be friends with them. It happens all the time in sports -- you know, your team plays your best friend's team, and you go all out to win, but at the end, you're still friends.

So what gives this time? Is it more of a political calculation?

Wasserman Schultz has also played a leading role in persuading the new Democratic majority to sustain the economic embargo against Cuba and has established close ties to the staunchly pro-embargo U.S.-Cuba Democracy political action committee, which has contributed thousands to Wasserman Schultz and Meek's campaigns.

It's embarrassing, that's what it is.

I have been invited to attend a luncheon next week at which Rep. Wasserman Schultz will be the keynote speaker. For various reasons, I had been wavering about whether or not to attend -- but now I feel honor-bound not only to attend, but to ask her how she feels she effectively can chair a DCCC committee while refusing to take on Republicans just because they are friends. I'm sure her constituents will be wondering the same thing.

UPDATE (12:38 pm 3/12/08): I understand that Rep. Wasserman Schultz said recently on teevee that she opposes a mail-in re-do of Florida's Democratic primary because it would be undemocratic. Not sure what she means by that or what makes it any less democratic than any other system ... so there's a second question I can ask her, if I'm able.

Making Florida competitive

Interesting post by Chris Cilizza today on his WaPo blog, "The Fix."

Cilizza reviewed the big win by Bill Foster (D-Ill.) in Saturday's special election to fill former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) seat (not literally, one presumes) and, based on the degree to which that district, Illinois' 14th, went for Drunky McStagger in 2004, he posits that there will be a lot more seats in play in November than the Republicans ever imagined -- and several of those are right here in America's Wang™.

Looking for a way to compare apples to apples when it comes to congressional districts, we turned to our old friends at the Cook Political Report and their Partisan Voting Index (PVI). The PVI was developed by the folks at Cook in the summer of 1997 as a way of looking at measuring every district in the country against the nation as a whole. Each district was given a score -- R+6, D+19 -- that indicated how it performed on the presidential level when compared to the country. A score of R+6 means that the district performed six points more Republican than the country as a whole; conversely, a score of D+19 means the seat performed 19 points more Democratic than the nation. (A further explanation of PVI is behind the Cook Report's subscription wall so get one today!)

Illinois' 14th district has a PVI score of R+5. A quick look at Cook's PVI ratings reveals that 53 Republican-held seats have a score more Democratic than that. Of that group, the largest number (33) carry PVI scores between R+2.0-R+4.9 while 18 districts have PVI ratings of D+1.9-R+1.9 and two seats have PVI of D+5.0-D+9.9.

We wanted to go even further inside those numbers, however, so we did a quick scan of all the Republican held districts that had a PVI score of no lower than R+1 and no higher than R+5 -- the same rating as the Hastert seat.

(Before we get into the numbers, it's worth noting that IL-14 was a special election race held on a Saturday, so turnout and other factors are not directly comparable to a general election in a presidential year.)

That search turned up 51 districts -- the VAST majority of which would not be considered competitive in a typical cycle by most observers. (The full list of these seats can be found after the jump.)

Never mind the math, if you don't want to. Just know that those 51 districts lean Republican, but aren't locks (which you might have with, say, R+6 or greater). And check out Florida's part in that:

Florida boasts nine districts currently held by GOPers with PVI ratings between R+1 and R+5. Those nine districts are a mix of the once competitive (Florida's 8th and 12th), the occasionally competitive (Florida's 13th and 24th) and the never competitive (Florida's 5th, 7th, 15th, 18th and 25th.) Democrats have spent considerable time recruiting in Florida and are expected to put a number of these seats -- including the 24th and 25th -- in play this November.

We knew that the 13th, with Vern Buchanan stealing the seat from rightful winner Christine Jennings, would be back in play this fall. But the others? Let's take a look:

• 5 -- Ginny Brown-Waite
• 7 -- John Mica
• 8 -- Ric Keller
• 12 -- Adam Putnam
• 13 -- Vern Buchanan (as noted above)
• 15 -- Dave Weldon (retiring, thank Jeebus)
• 18 -- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
• 24 -- Tom Feeney
• 25 -- Mario Diaz-Balart

A real rogue's gallery, that. And to think that, in light of Foster's win in Illinois, we could entertain the possibility of turnover in those Florida districts, well, that's a very exciting prospect indeed. This is a group of lockstep Bushie Republicans who ought to be disgracefully expelled from Congress ... and this might just be the year to do it.

Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart already have solid Democratic challengers, 15 and 24 also are looking good for the Dems already, Brown-Waite is a moron, Keller is a corrupt assbag (which anyone with an ounce of sense knew when he was first elected to Congress), Putnam is a hypocrite, and Mica is in the pocket of so many special interests we lose count.

Will the Florida Democratic Party and the DCCC actually understand that we can knock some of these idiots out? That remains to be seen, but I hope the Foster situation -- er, I should say, Representative Foster -- is proof positive that we ought to try.

Cuba libre?

Well, not quite, but if Democratic strategist Jeff Garcia is right, Florida might be freed from the clutches of the batshit crazy wingnut Cuban-American-hyphenated contingent in Congress.

Republicans Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and documented liar Ileana Ros-Lehtinen have enjoyed a stranglehold on Miami's congressional districts in recent years, but they've also marched in lockstep with Drunky McStagger, which finally may prove to be their political downfall ... and not a moment too soon.

In the past six weeks, three Democrats have thrown their hats into the ring:

• Annette Taddeo, 40, a Colombian-American businesswoman, will challenge 18th District U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a 19-year congressional veteran.


• Former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, 58, is running in the 21st District against Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a 15-year congressman.


• Joe Garcia, 44, former [chairman] of the Florida Public Service Commission and of the Miami-Dade County Democratic Party, is up against Mario Diaz-Balart, who is gunning for his fourth term in the relatively new 25th District.

The names Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen are iconic in Cuban Miami, and challenging them will be a chore.

"Running against any incumbent is hard, and running against an incumbent family is even harder," Joe Garcia says of the Diaz-Balart brothers, descendants of a powerful political family in pre-Castro Cuba.

But that brings Jeff Garcia - no relation - back to the numbers.

According to the Democrats, a poll conducted last July revealed that 75 percent of registered voters in District 21 said the Republicans had mismanaged the war in Iraq. In District 25, that figure was 76 percent.

In a separate poll conducted last fall in District 18, 73 percent of potential voters said they opposed the war, according to the Democrats.

All three GOP incumbents have backed President Bush's Iraq policy even as public support for the war has waned. The three challengers say the next president must find a way to end major U.S. military involvement relatively soon.

The economy is tanking, America's global reputation is shot to hell, and corruption pervades Drunky's maladministration, but I believe it's still going to come down to the war. Just as Huggy Bear is inextricably tied to his BFF Drunky's position on the illegal and unnecessary war (despite what some alleged experts say), so too are many on the GOP side in Congress ... and nowhere is that more true than right here in America's Glans™.

I'm not ready to declare schadenfreude on Miami's Three Hyphenated Stooges just yet ... but this is the best chance Democrats have had in a long time to unseat them.