A federal appeals court panel in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on Thursday, but said that only the Supreme Court will be able to settle the question of whether the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages from states where such unions are legal.
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said the act, which was signed by President Clinton and denies federal economic and other benefits for married people from same-sex couples married in states where it is legal, could not be justified under current precedents that protect minorities and other groups from discrimination.
Johnny Reid Edwards, a honey-voiced North Carolina lawyer who parlayed his boyish good looks and inspiring personal history as the son of a mill-worker into a meteoric political rise, was acquitted of one count Thursday in a corruption case, as the judge declared a mistrial on five other charges on which the jury was deadlocked.
The mixed result in a trial that laid bare Edwards’s sexual indiscretions and serial deceptions came after nine days of jury deliberations.
Wow.
What a mess.
Good for Edwards. I guess. If this outcome means the whole thing goes away faster, then I'm for it.
In a much-anticipated decision, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on Thursday struck down some provisions of a Florida elections law that imposed new restrictions on third-party groups that register voters.
Well, there likely goes at least part of the hospital grifter Governor's plan to keep people from registering to vote -- those yucky "community organizers!". Of course, he's still managed to purge hundreds and hudreds of eligible voters, so he's got that going for him.
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has made a huge $4 million airtime reservation for the fall campaign, according to a memo circulated by his campaign.
The reservation is a sign that Buchanan, a wealthy auto dealer, is willing to spend huge amounts of his own money to stay in Congress. His campaign had just shy of $1.5 million in the bank as of the end of March, a total that includes a nearly $500,000 contribution from the candidate.
This is a big, big ad buy, and it's telling: Vern wants to keep that seat.
Of course, this isn't the first sign from the Buchanan Campaign that they were worried about Keith. 435 Members of the House of Representatives, and guess who the top spender on mass mailings is? That's right: thug Vern Buchanan:
The Longboat Key Republican spent $142,000 in the first three months of 2011 to get 3.6 million mail pieces, emails and automated phone calls to people in the 13th Congressional District.
No one else in Congress spent more than $80,000 on mailers in that period. On average, members spent about $7,400 on such communications.
That's an awful lot of money -- ahem, your money, by the way (where's a tea party weirdo when you need one?) -- just to let people know you're there. I guess if I was being investigated by more than one entity, I'd want to use your money to talk myself up, too.
It's raining here for what seems like the first time in a long time -- it's been at least a month, maybe more. We had some thunder, though no lightning. Duncan says it's the good kind of rain. Slow, steady, keeps coming down. Soaks everything. I was wondering when the rainy season would get started. Lord knows we needed it.
Still, those dark clouds had an ominous look. We've been lucky on the hurricane front here in Florida for a few years running, now. I wonder how much longer that's going to last.
Maybe I'm just a little more paranoid with two kids in the house. I do like the rain, though.
...Rove's group isn't the only pro-Romney group planning on dumping millions into the presidential campaign: Restore Our Future, the Romney-aligned Super PAC staffed by former Romney aides, has spent $4.3 million in anti-Obama attack ads. The Koch brothers' Americans For Prosperity has spent $5 million. And another group called American Future Fund is spending millions as well.
None of this is unexpected... just disappointing.
One of the states where the ads started running is Florida.
Beside a national debt clock ominously ticking upward of $1.6 trillion, Mitt Romney Wednesday used his first Florida campaign appearance as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to blast Barack Obama for broken promises and fiscal recklessness.
"It's high time that we have a president who will stop this spending and borrowing inferno and I will. I'll get the job done," Romney told several hundred enthusiastic supporters at the Mirror Lake Lyceum in St. Petersburg. "I'm concerned about this country. I'm concerned about the debt. I'm concerned about the spending. I find it incomprehensible that a president could come to office and call his predecessor's record irresponsible and unpatriotic, and then do almost nothing to fix it and instead every year to add more and more and more spending."
But as he headed to Tampa for a fundraising reception that raised $2.3 million, Romney's attack on the president's spending record left unclear how the former Massachusetts governor's largely vague budget plans — cutting taxes and ramping up defense spending — will reign in the country's deficit. He has avoided identifying tax loopholes he would eliminate or specifically where he would make dramatic budget cuts required to make a real dent in the deficit.
Don't worry. I'm sure Karl Rove's ads will clear that right up.
# # # #
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (or CREW) have called on thug Congressman Vern Buchanan to resign. From the Bradenton Herald story:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints about Buchanan with both the Federal Election Commission and the House Office of Congressional Ethics. The FEC investigation has closed, but the OCE last week made public the findings of its probe into Buchanan's conduct.
The OCE found there's "substantial reason to believe" Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a former business partner who was a witness during the Federal Election Commission investigation into the congressman's fundraising. The report asks the Ethics Committee to consider whether Buchanan violated federal bribery, obstruction and witness tampering laws -- all of which have criminal penalties.
"It is time for Rep. Buchanan to go," said CREW's executive director, Melanie Sloan. "House Republican leaders -- who swore a zero tolerance policy for ethical wrongdoing -- should be condemning his conduct and demanding his departure, not playing golf with him in Sarasota."
Vern probably should resign, but he won't.
So if you're in the 16th CD, maybe you should take it upon yourself to shown Vern the door. Vote for Keith Fitzgerald, and send an honorable and decent guy to Congress.
I'd love to tell you that the lack of posting has had everything to do with the arrival of Finnegan, but that would be fair to you. It certainly wouldn't be fair to Finn. It wouldn't be fair to Duncan, and it wouldn't be fair to Emeline, who's had a lot of quality one-on-one time with her old man (Finn feeds virtually all day, so Duncan has a lot going on).
It is partly technology. We've had lousy Internet service for some time, and our computer is on the brink. I usually hate to jinx stuff like that, but, well... the situation is pretty bad.
Anyway, even that's not fair. I just haven't been able to manage my time as well as I would like. Sure, I'm doing more around the house as I take this week off to be with my family. But there is an art to making time -- and I need to get back to it.
There's been a great deal of analysis of this upset, but for me, it's pretty simple: Lugar, a guy who was known to work in the occasional bi-partisan fashion, was beat because bi-partisan work is, well, unfashionable.
In a weird way, I feel bad for guys like Lugar. Yeah, he was a reliable Republican vote, and to my mind, the whole "bi-partisan" thing was a little overblown (quick: what were the big Democratic initiatives he supported?). I suspect there's a lot more inside-the-beltway, DC-pundit family sadness over this loss than the whole mythology around bi-partisanship, but whatever. This guy Mourdock is apparently nuts.
It's Indiana, so it'll be a tough state for a Democrat -- even a conservative one, like the one that's running -- to win. But who knows.
And speaking of corrupt Florida politicians, things are getting worse for thug Congressman Vern Buchanan: there is solid evidence he may well have broken the law. The bottom line is, he used his vast wealth to reimburse people who made donations to his campaign. That's illegal. It's basically money laundering, and at this point, if even some of these allegations pan out, I'm not sure the man can make it to Election Day.
But in case he does, you should go help his opponent, Keith Fitzgerald -- an honest guy.
I know exactly what you're thinking: I should be widely lauded, celebrated, showered with kudos, and hailed as some sort of pop culture god both at work and at home for not only remembering the lyrics to the Burt Bacharach smash hit "Any Day Now," but also for being good enough to share their magic with my family via my atonal, tuneless (and unbearably nasal) warbling.
Sadly, not every member of my family feels this way. I believe Emeline's exact words were, "stop singing, Daddy."
It may have been "Daddy, please stop singing."
As it happens, I am most familiar with the version made famous by the great Ronnie Milsap (sung sort of cornily by Elvis before him, forgettably by Alan Price before him, and in a neat kind of Motown way by Chuck Jackson before him.). After the less-than-stellar review of such a moving rendition/imitation, I decided to suffer alone the indignity of realizing that the Milsap version of this fantastic -- and, save for the title, vaguely inappropriate -- song was recorded and released the year my wife was born.
Surprisingly, my grand selflessness provides no comfort to my incredibly pregnant wife. These last few days and weeks haven't been easy, and no amount of crooning from Ronnie Milsap -- or me -- seems to make her feel any better.
Still, we're all eagerly awaiting the arrival of Finn. We know he's coming, coming soon, and we'll be so happy when he does. Our house is filled with some discomfort, yes, and not just from the sounds of my singing. But our house is also filled with joy and anticipation.
Finn is coming.
Any day now.
# # # #
That was a roundabout -- and goofy -- way of saying things are busy at home. So sorry for less-than-regular posting. It's for a good cause.
Of course, I've been a little off politics lately, too. And by "off," I mean ready to bludgeon myself with my Boston Red Sox game day commemorative mini-bat until the precious few thinky parts finally, mercifully go numb. The final, pathetic straw for me -- at least for the next few news cycles, or whatever -- was this whole war on women non-deal deal.
I guess I'm supposed to be outraged because a Democratic consultant named Hilary Rosen said something about Ann Romney not working a day in her life, which then got turned around into somehow a knock against mothers who stay home to raise their kids. Never mind that Rosen meant that Ann Romney never held a nine to five job in the classic, traditional sense: she never filled out an application to work at a company, an orgnaization, whatever.
Is staying home and raising kids work? Sure it is. It's important work. But that's not what Rosen was talking about.
Nevermind. It was made that by the Romney operatives, who then proceeded to handle their minor gift in as incompetent a way as you could imagine.
But as you already know, in politics, the shark has a goddam trampoline. Rosen became a target of over-the-top attacks from the likes of Bill Donohoe's Catholic League::
@CatholicLeague: Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.
And now we're declaring war on people who adopt kids. I suppose it's needless to say the war on the GLBT community continues from the likes of Donohoe -- it's just amped up.
Maybe because the Romney Campaign is just not used to being in general election mode, or perhaps because they're really asleep at the switch, they've handled the fallout of all of this very, very poorly.
“They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income.
“It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.
“We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.
“The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.
“Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.
Bold is mine because, Jesus Cash Cow Christ, if you can ever use the phrase "sell off a little at a time," as it pertains to stock, you don't know what you're talking about with respect to "not easy years." You're living off the stock of the company your father-in-law owns.
It's hard to find something more distasteful than the ultra-wealthy play-acting everyman. It's downright uncomfortable when they do it as poorly as the Romneys.
# # # #
My outrage about working mothers is supposed to be further supplemented by this image, via Mustang Bobby, of Hillary Clinton dancing in Colombia:
(photo: Getty)
Yes, chortles Dr. Nile Gardiner (director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom! ...but not the freedom... to DANCE!) -- and you just know it's that gurgling, evil British chortle, too; Lord, he's probably stroking a white cat in his undersea fortress of evil, even as he writes in the orignial U.K. Telegraph piece:
The overwhelmingly liberal US media is treating the story as a bit of fun, with the usually austere Mrs Clinton seen as letting her hair down. But I suspect that a lot of US taxpayers will see it differently – as a senior government official having a jolly time on an official overseas junket at taxpayers’ expense. And this was hardly a display of good judgment at a time when nearly 13 million Americans are unemployed, and US soldiers are laying their lives on the line every day in Afghanistan. In an effortless display of leading from behind, Hillary was partying in Colombia while the Taliban were about to launch a wave of terror attacks in Kabul.
It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger “livin' la vida loca” on the world stage. This was less an example of “smart power” than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of Jersey Shore. Hillary Clinton’s Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State. Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses.
Mmmm! Yes! "Livin' la vida loca"! Aren't I the clever one?
Hey, I get what he's doing. He's working on a tie-in to the Secret Service scandal, which is starting to look like a very real, very serious problem. Maybe he's even envisioning a larger narrative with what's happened at GSA: something which may -- and should -- offend "a lot of US taxpayers".
Rocker Ted Nugent has reportedly earned himself the scrutiny of the Secret Service after saying over the weekend that he would be "dead or in jail by this time next year" if President Barack Obama is re-elected.
Nugent made the comments during an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, comparing Obama and his administration to "coyotes" that needed to be shot and encouraging voters to "chop [Democrats'] heads off in November."
You know, the older I get, the less patience I have for the likes of Ted Nugent.
This isn't even politics -- it's just insulting and threatening people. I hope that my son and daughter grow up in an America where we've figured out that the ten minutes of the Ted Nugents of the world (not ot mention the NRA) were up a long time ago. Intolerance isn't news, hate is no longer a headline.
If you were curious, yes, Santorum cussing at a New York Times reporter is campaign strategy. In Conservative World, there exists the epic mythology of the liberal media. At the epicenter of that mythology is the long-reviled New York Times (the TV version is MSNBC, by the way). Yell bullshit to a Times reporter? Hell, yeah! That makes you a man's man, and a Real Conservative.
In other words, it plays to the base.
Seven more months of this bullshit, people.
# # # #
This ad from one-time presidential lead contender Herman Cain is not just bizarre, it's terrible and depraved and awful.
Please, if there are kids in the room, get them out before you hit play. I'm not kidding:
I don't know what's wrong with Herman Cain, but I damn sure hope the PETA folks -- and just about everyone else -- takes up this cause. This is just plain sick, nearly as sick as their first ad.
It's probably a bad idea to give a guy willing to stoop to these levels any play (yes, the bunny is fake -- and poorly done at that -- but it's the principle of the thing; the fish, on the other hand, is real). What I'm hoping is that enough people will feel a sense of outrage over this and speak up.
# # # #
In some sad Gulfport news, former Ward 1 City Councilmember Judy Ryerson passed away.
Just a quick last word on the whole Trayvon Martin tragedy. The folks behind George Zimmerman, the shooter, are starting to get their story together, and it's really just very, very ugly.
NRA architects of the obviously awful and painfully stupid "Stand Your Ground" law here in Florida find "nothing wrong with it." Once again, this should surprise no one.
The hard truth is, none of that matters. None of it.
Everyone agrees that Trayvon Martin was unarmed.
Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was unarmed. He didn't have a gun. George Zimmerman did. Was Trayvon physically beating Zimmerman? Maybe. Probably not.
By the way, how come no one seems to be asking this question: if an armed guy bigger than you is chasing you down a sidewalk, what do you do? Do you just stop and throw your hands up and do nothing? Or was Trayvon defending himself against a crazed 911 abuser with a history of violence?
An unarmed teenager is dead in Sanford, Florida.
That's really all there is to it. Everything else -- Trayvon's side, Zimmerman's side, doesn't matter -- is all just extraneous stuff.
There's a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves as a country, as a society: are we the kind of place where it's okay for a person with a gun to shoot a person without a gun. Are we that kind of society? Is that the kind of world we want for our children?
Of the GOP candidates, only Ron Paul seemed to notice the insincerity of Limbaugh’s regret. “I don’t think he’s very apologetic,” Paul said. “He’s doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line he’s concerned about.”
Why will Paul say the obvious while Romney, Santorum and Gingrich are barely willing to clear their throats? Because Paul, who is in this campaign to spread the gospels of libertarianism and Austrian economics, knows he can’t win the Republican nomination. The others, who think they do have a chance to win, are afraid of making Limbaugh into an enemy — or, in Romney’s case, into more of an enemy than he already is.
So let’s get this straight: These guys want us to believe they’re ready to face down Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Eun, the Taliban and what’s left of al-Qaeda. Yet they’re so scared of a talk-radio buffoon that they ignore or excuse an eruption of venom that some of Limbaugh’s advertisers — nine, at last count, have said they would no longer sponsor the show — find inexcusable.
I just have to say this: my first experience with Rush Limbaugh was when I was at Arkansas State University, and this weird guy in graduate school who hung out with us played a sort of clever trick on me. "Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh?" he asked me, "The kid that lives down the hall from us in the dorm?" Yeah, sure, I'd heard of him, I said, having heard the name, but not really remembering the context (likely an ad somewhere). Wanting to impress friends, I said something to the effect of, Yeah, I met him a couple of times, or something equally stupid.
Ha ha, joke's on me. This "friend" does the big reveal, which is actually a set-up to have me come listen to Rush Limbaugh in his room for an hour.
It was an awful, awful hour. But ever since, I check in with Limabaugh every now and then. He's as crazy now as he was then. Crazier, maybe.
And silly, and stupid. Which is what you expect from an entertainer, a clown. A comedian, as Keith Olbermann always calls him. Which Limbaugh is. I have always maintained that what he does is more an act than anything. I'm not saying he doesn't believe what he says -- I think he does -- it's just that he knows how to embellish it. He knows how to sell it. And he has sold it so effectively, that there is now a wide base which takes it all as gospel.
I also want to say this: I have a daughter, now. She's only two, but part what comes with being the father of a daughter is being aware that one day, relatively far in the future, she'll be old enough to wear make-up. She'll pass notes in a classroom about cute boys. She'll go on a date. She'll go to college. She'll bring home some boyfriend. She'll bring home some guy who wants to marry her.
I'll probably hate all of it. I'm okay with it -- I want her to love like I love her mother, I want her to be loved like she deserves -- but as a father, it's just one of those things...
No woman -- not my daughter, not yours -- deserves to be talked about the way that two-bit, half-assed entertainer talked about Sandra Fluke. It is my sincerest hope that Limbaugh's deplorable language sticks to Republicans long after the last advertiser drops him.
And I'll make you this promise right now: if my daughter grows up to be as brave as Sandra Fluke and testifies before Congress and some piece of shit like Rush Limbaugh comes after her, he'll have more to worry about than just advertisers.
Ten states, stretching geographically more than 4,500 miles — from Alaska to Massachusetts — will hold Republican contests on Tuesday, giving the candidates a chance to accumulate delegates and prove their vote-getting abilities.
Historically speaking, Tuesday will not be the most “super.” In 2008, nearly two dozen states or territories held primary contests to choose a presidential nominee. But with 437 delegates at stake in the contests, Tuesday’s results could dramatically shape the direction of the campaign as it moves into the spring.
I'll be watching tonight, for sure -- not sure what predictions I can offer. Reading between the lines of the New York Times/538 link above, I might guess that Romney will do a bit better than expected. But will he finally lock it up? Nobody seems willing to say that.
...this is basically why the whole White Knight fantasy is so preposterous. Go quietly. Mitt? Like he did when it was time for Newt to take it away from him? Or Santorum? As I wrote a few days ago, “Okay, cool. I’m still ahead in delegates. I’ve got tons of money. I’m not sure what else I’ll do with my life at this point beside do this. But sure, I’m just going to step aside now and become the only mulligan nominee in modern history.”
Again, not going to happen. And really, why should he? Absent some massive, crippling scandal, which seems all but unimaginable from Mitt, he remains by far the most plausible and competitive candidate against President Obama.
That's exactly right. Even if Jeb Bush -- the GOP dream candidate -- steps up to the plate, you think Romney just hands over his delegates? You think Romney just hands over all his cash? Of course not. It'd be a fight -- and a particularly ugly one at that.
Which is what makes it so delicious a thought for us bloggers and political types. I know... totally gross.
I know. If you need to take a minute to collect yourself after busting a gut, please feel free to do so.
Anyway, just about my favorite part is how these two are credited in the piece:
Karl Rove served as deputy chief of staff and Ed Gillespie as counselor to U.S. President George W. Bush.
Of all the things Rove and Gillespie could credit themselves with, they (or Foreign Affairs) chose to list their service to a president who marched us into a war of choice, the cost of which (along with unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy) drove our nation into financial calamity, cost us the lives of men and women in American uniforms, cost countless Iraqi lives, and stained our reputation as a global leader, possibly forever.
It's their boss who put the economy in the crapper and got us nine kinds of sideways with the global community, and their best advice to their party's nominee is, our place in the world is effed up. I guess you have to give them credit for having major-league cajones.
A new report released today shows how children living in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families of color have become collateral damage of antiquated laws, social stigma, and discrimination.
Some findings include:
· LGBT families are more racially and ethnically diverse than families headed by married heterosexual couples. Of same-sex couples with children, 41% are people of color, compared to 34% of married different-sex couples with children.
· LGBT families of color face greater poverty. For example, 32% of children raised by black same-sex couples live in poverty, compared to 13% of children raised by black married different-sex couples and 7% of children raised by white married different-sex couples.
· Decreased access to health insurance. While 74% of white workers receive health insurance coverage through work, only 42% of Latino workers, 50% of black workers, and 69% of Asian/Pacific Islander workers receive such coverage through their employers. LGBT families also face reduced access because most employers are not required to cover either the same-sex partners of their workers or that partner¹s children.
· Bullying and harassment impeding their ability to learn. Children may be bullied or harassed based on their own race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity‹or that of their parents. For example, a survey of LGBT parents and their school-age children found that 40% of students with LGBT parents reported being verbally harassed because of their families, and 43% of students of color with LGBT parents said that they had experienced harassment because of their race and ethnicity
It's a sobering report, to be sure. Still, I was pleased to see this quote included in the materials from the report release:
"Contrary to popular stereotypes, both black and Latino gay and lesbian couples are morelikely to raise children than their white counterparts," said Sharon Lettman-Hicks, executive director and CEO of the National Black Justice Coalition. "Gay and lesbian couples of color are also more likely to become foster parents."
I think that's a wonderful thing, and pretty much any time Rick Santorum opens his mouth, the response ought to be to quote Ms. Lettman-Hicks verbatim.
I know this is one of those groaner lines that'll make you wince, but it's true and I don't have any other way to say it: I have friends who are Republicans.
I do. And they're not even make-believe.
For the most part, the Republicans I know are good, decent folks who are patriotic. They prefer lower tax rates because they prefer smaller government. In fact, government isn't the first answer, it's usually the solution of last resort... except when it comes to national defense, in which case they want a robust global presence that usually involves guns, missiles, planes and tanks. Their default is to individual rights, and that includes gun ownership.
There's more, and I disagree with them on almost all of it. But we can usually have a reasonable conversation about the news of the day or even politics without killing each other.
I think the Republicans I know would be repulsed at the idea of outlawing contraception.
This isn't the abortion debate -- this is birth control.
Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”
The Blunt amendment he was specifically referring to would “ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions” under the Affordable Care Act.
Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).
• Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.
• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades
Imagine essentially saying to 43 million women: you should have contraception, because it's sinful!
I should point out that the Republicans I know -- who include women -- are horrified by this. And they should be. After all, this is no longer about differences in approaches to public policy between two political sides: it is outright religious insanity.
# # # #
I went to FiveThirtyEight today, and if you're Mitt Romney, they're painting a pretty bleak picture. It looks like he is on-track to lose his "other" home state of Michigan on the 28th. Yes, his other "home" state was New Hampshire, where he has a vacation house. Of course, he was governor of Massachusetts, but his father was governor of Michigan and head of a car company -- you know, one of those things Mitt Romney said we should let fail.
Sure, it looks like he will win Arizona, also on the 28th, but it may not matter if Santorum wins Michigan, staying one win ahead of Mitt.
And the news gets worse, because March 6th is Ohio and Georgia, and in Georgia, it looks like Newt might finally win one (you'll recall that the former Speaker is originally from Georgia, sadly for the people of Georgia). Ohio looks awfully close -- leaning towards Gingrich right now -- but even close is bad news for Mister Inevitable (that was, um, Mitt Romney, you know...).
During a segment about new rules regarding women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta attacked the Department of Defense for increasing spending on support programs for victims of sexual assault. Trotta also reacted to a Pentagon report showing a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults since 2006 by stating: “Well, what did they expect? These people are in close contact.”
Trotta began by claiming “we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time” and later added that feminists “have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. ... you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much."
I know there are a whole lot of folks out there who like to complain about President Obama. Those folks should realize that the opposite of Obama is not more liberal Obama: it's people like this who go on FOX News and say things so outrageous, you'd swear it came from the Onion.
# # # #
I must tell you that David Frum's piece in the Daily Beast is my new favorite article, at least for right now. In it, he excerpts Grover Norquist's speech to CPAC. It is sublime:
They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:
All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.
The requirement for president?
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.
This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed.
That is it. That's what it's come down to in the GOP presidential primary: ten working fingers.
Republican operative Mark McKinnon in the Daily Beast article linked above:
Perhaps no other secular office in the world wields the power to do right more than the office of the President of the United States of America. But Obama now embraces that which he decried as “a threat to our democracy”—the unlimited and undisclosed influence of super-PAC funds on our electoral process.
The president owns the bully pulpit. He can set the tone, set the direction for the campaign, for the country. Rather than fight to change the rules that allow this perversion of the democratic voting process, he instead lowers the standards, giving his blessing to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing his reelection.
Once an outspoken critic of current campaign-financing laws, he now “reluctantly” embraces what he once called “shadowy groups.” With early fundraising numbers reportedly below expectations, perhaps it is no surprise the easier road is being taken. But Obama is now running against Karl Rove and the Koch brothers rather than running on his record.
So that's the strategic advice to the President from the "global vice chairman of Hill & Knowlton and Public Strategies, and president of Maverick Media"? Really? To use the "bully pulpit"?
It's simply disingenuous to suggest that Obama owns every bit of this. It's unfair. After all, President Obama didn't set the rules of the game: the United States Supreme Court did, largely with their Citizens United decision.
I've seen plenty of Democrats complain about President Obama, too. They should be complaining about the process. They should be donating to the Obama campaign.
Honestly who do you suspect will do more in the next term to reform this system (or try)? Barack Obama, or, say, Mitt Romney?
No delegates were awarded in the two caucuses and one non-binding primary, but it is another slap in the face of Mitt Romney, who I still think will be the nominee, but Republicans are determined to make it as ugly as they possibly can.
The Washington Blade rightly asks how how can President Barack Obama be against both Proposition 8, and still be against gay marriage. Before Prop 8 was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Prop 8 banned gays and lesbians from marrying. Obama should be a supporter of Prop 8. Yet, President Obama campaigned against Prop 8. The correspondent for the Blade questioned Carney on this inconsistency.
Look, I've been reading Pushing Rope long enough to know that Michael just can't stand President Obama. I get it. But the logic of attacking an administration that has done more to advance the cause of gay rights in America is beyond me. How many other Presidents (and Vice Presidents, and White House staffers and Cabinet Secretaries) have cut an "It Gets Better" video? Which President repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell? What President shifted their position and openly advocated for the repeal of DOMA, and which President has openly endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act? What President ordered hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds give gay and lesbian patients and their families the ability to make decisions on their behalf in case of incapacitation? What President expanded federal benefits for same-sex partners of Foreign Service Officers and executive branch employees?
It's kind of fun to read the reactions among the wingers over the ruling yesterday in California that struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. The way they tell it, a bunch of activist judges rode roughshod over the rights of 7 million Californians and in one fell swoop imperiled the laws in 43 states. While this kind of knee-jerk reaction is typical in cases like this, it might be a good idea for the pearl-clutchers to actually read the ruling itself before going off on their predictable fund-raising rants.
Here's some Ben Kirby trivia that will sound like a total brag-fast, probably because it is: I'm not a terrible public speaker. Actually, I am pretty okay. If I'm well prepared, I'm really quite good.
Don't ask me how. I just don't get nervous in front of big groups. In fact, I enjoy it. When you really connect with a group of folks, you know it, and it's quite a rush.
You care to guess how much I command for my public speaking engagements?
That's right: zero. No one pays me anything when I speak in front of a group. Nothing. Nada. Zip. In fact, almost all of the time, my speaking in front of people involves me doing so in my professional capacity, so unless you count what I get paid, anyway, we're not even talking about playing for tips.
Would you care to guess how much Mitt Romney gets for public speaking engagements?
In Greenville, S.C., Romney was asked directly what his effective tax rate is. It was a hot topic of discussion at Monday night's debate, at which Romney repeatedly declined to fully commit to release his tax returns.
"It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," said Romney on Tuesday. "For the past 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or earned annual income. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. Then, I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much."
Not very much? According to his personal financial disclosure, from February 2010 to February 2011, Romney earned $374,327.62 in speaking fees. A few months later, Romney joked that he was "unemployed."
But perhaps the trickiest part of this reinvention is changing who Mr. Romney is when he steps out from behind the lectern and wades into a roomful of voters: a cautious chief executive who is uneasy with off-the-cuff remarks, unnatural at chitchat and spare with his emotions.
[SNIP]
For a candidate who is exceedingly risk-averse, Mr. Romney has developed an unlikely penchant for trying to puzzle out everything from voters’ personal relationships to their ancestral homelands.
“Sisters?” he asked. (Nope, stepmother and stepdaughter.) “Your husband?” he wondered. (No, just a friend from the neighborhood.) “Mother and daughter?” he guessed. (Cousins, actually.)
The results can be awkward. “Daughter?” he asked a woman sitting with a man and two younger girls at the diner in Tilton, N.H., on Friday morning. Her face turned a shade of red. “Wife.”
This is a guy who got nearly half a million to speak? I'll concede that as a former governor, maybe folks want to hear what he has to say.
But I'm a pretty good speaker, too. And I'll never guess someone's ancestral homeland, their relationships, or their age. And I will always -- always think three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars is a whole lot of money.
# # # #
As an aside, Romney -- a man whose "estimated wealth" is somewhere "between $190 million to $250 million" -- appears to be just about as out of touch as you could find.
Look, if you're looking for what will be at the heart of Election 2012, that's about the sum of it right there. The Republicans seem poised to nominate a man who believes nearly four hundred-thousand dollars for a year for giving speeches is "not much," and that speaking publicly for darn near a half-million dollars a year makes you "unemployed". And that guessing the ages and familial relationships of perfect strangers somehow infuses glowing personality where there simply is none.
# # # #
I saw some headlines this afternoon that Wisconsin Democrats submitted enough signatures to trigger a recall election for Governor Scott Walker -- along with the Lt. Governor, and three state senators. And they did with with an extra 460,000 signatures.
Well, everyone is going to be talking about the Iowa Caucus through tonight and probably in to tomorrow.
Like I said yesterday, I don't know how it'll break down. I do happen to think that this editorial cartoon, which ran in the Tampa Bay Times today is probably pretty accurate:
...remembering, of course, that the candidate who won the "Presidency 5" straw poll here in Florida was Herman Cain.
Don't wory: January 10 will be here before you know it. Then we can talk about New Hampshire.
# # # #
I've long gone with the GOP-nomintes-the-next-in-line for president theory. Here's a guy a Crooks and Liars who does a lot better job of explaining why that's Mitt Romney.
It's a curious thing. I study Republicans for a living—I've done so for almost 15 years. I write books about their history; I write articles about their present. But these days, you probably couldn't find a political junky in America less interested to the supposedly hotly contested race for the Republican nomination. I called it for Willard "Mitt" Romney well over three years ago—the day he finished second to John McCain in 2008. That made him "next in line;" and our modern Republican Party pretty much always nominates the next in line, or at the very least The Logical Choice Of The Party Establishment. In 1968, it was Nixon, the former vice president. In '76 it was the accidental president, Gerald Ford. The guy who came in second in '76, Ronald Reagan, was nominated in 1980; Vice President Bush, the man who finished second in '80, in '88. Old Man Dole in '96. Son of Bush in 2000. Mighty McCain in 2008.
There's a lot going on with Scientology (headquartered up the road from me in Clearwater) that I don't understand. This looks to be pretty ugly for them from a legal point of view.
# # # #
You know, sometimes I think liberals, Democrats, progressives over-analyze things. By a lot.
The most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn’t play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve.
Wait, I can't? Why not? He's a racist old coot from Texas.
Stoller ties it all up into more than 2,300 words on Paul's views on the Federal Reserve Bank, monetary policy, and American empire ("...this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed (and implicitly, why liberals do not), and the relationship between the Federal Reserve and American empire." Um, okay.).
If you go back and look at some of libertarian allies, like Fox News’s Judge Napolitano, they will answer that question for you. Napolitano hates, absolutely hates, Abraham Lincoln. He sometimes slyly refers to Lincoln as America’s first dictator. Libertarians also detest Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Yeah, Libertarians... like Ron Paul. I like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln.
Look, if you don't like Abraham Lincoln because he "financed the Civil War pretty much entirely by money printing and debt creation," then you have too much time on your hands. You've overthought it. By a lot.
In Stoller's defense, he's trying to build a larger case, or at least a conversation, around libertarianism.
So Christmas was great. Santa Claus definitely visited Emeline. Twice. Maybe three times. Hey, the guy's been across two thirds of the globe by the time he gets here -- he's bushed. He gets confused... maybe he hits a little of the "Christmas cheer" on the ride over the Atlantic. I don't know.
What I do know is that it was great. I'm a lucky guy -- lucky to have the family I do. Lucky to have a job that affords me a bit of time off, lets me unplug and come back, fresh and ready to go with new ideas for the new year.
All of that being said, I'm glad it's over. And I'm looking forward to whatever 2012 has in store.
Frankly, I have to say good riddance. I know it's terrible strategy -- "Democrats! In danger! Of losing! The Senate!" is the bottom line of the POLITICO piece linked above -- but how you can be as conservative as Nelson and still be characterized as one of the "most endangered" Senators is beyond me.
You might recall Senator Nelson's name from the health care fight days. He was the one who held hostage the entire bill in order to get, well, stuff for his state, for lack of a better way to say it.
And this is what his opposite has wrought. A retirement -- at the age of 70, I'd note -- under political duress. What a legacy.
Democrats can do better. Who knows. Maybe we will.
# # # #
Remember the mess a few months ago around Michele Bachmann's comments on the HPV vaccine? Yeah, seems like a long time ago. Wasn't all that long ago. A lot can happen in politics in a little amount of time.
Religious conservatives loved the HPV virus because it killed women. Here was a potentially fatal STI that condoms couldn't protect you from. Abstinence educators pointed to HPV and jumped up and down—they loved to overstate HPV's seriousness and its deadliness—in their efforts to scare kids into saving themselves for marriage. And they fought the introduction of the HPV vaccine tooth-and-nail because vaccinating women against HPV would "undermine" the abstinence message.
As a father and as a political moderate, I read the whole thing with gritted teeth. But as much as it scares me as a father, and offends the (wannabe) political moderate, I am obliged to offer you this challenge: find one word in there that's false. It's in your face, it's aggressive, it's reactionary.
You go back and listen to what people like Bachmann have said in their abstinence messages, and you tell me that this isn't true.
As an aside, I'm guessing it'll be Bachmann that drops out of the GOP primary race if she doesn't do better than third or fourth in Iowa.
# # # #
Memorandum to my friends in the "regular" media: editors still matter.
Yeah, okay, check out the headline from the Aaron Deslatte Orlando Sentinel piece, found here at Saint Petersblog: Florida's safety net has survived budget cuts. And when you click the link from Peter's site to the Sentinel, you'll see the same headline.
You think, great news! Thank god all those poor people are getting the services... wait, what?
Because of course that's not right. And I was all set to go to work on Deslatte and the Sentinel and call them out for fibbing, a la PolitiFact and their so-called Lie of the Year. And then I read the article.
Well, the doggone safety net didn't survive at all! Unless you call the tattered mess of whatever sorry tapestry of service still serves a handful of Floridians a "safety net". Trust me, this isn't a net you'd want to have under your high-wire act.
So before you get all pissed, click the "single page" link on the Sentinel site. And then check the headline again.
So, which is it? Did the safety net live? Or are social services imperiled?
Or is my brain scrambled having watched "Tangled" too many times, now? Cut me some slack. I've got a toddler, and it's Christmas. Also, Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) has some chops. Don't you think?
Crushed by negative ads from all sides, Newt Gingrich has dropped into third place after Paul (23%) and Romney (20%) in the latest PPP poll of Iowa out tonight.
I figured the guy might stll win Iowa, but now, who knows. It's a mess.
Josh Marshall at TPM notes that there's a ton of negative ads out there against Gingrich, and he hasn't done squat to answer them. I think it also might have something to do with the fact that Gingrich is an insufferable blowhard, and nobody can stand to be in a room with him for more than ten seconds without wanting to gouge their ears out.
To be fair, Gallup still has him leading the pack nation-wide, but faltering (in fairly dramatic fashion). I think it's interesting to note that Romney and the rest of the deficient loons in the pack have remained fairly steady.
# # # #
Speaking of Iowa and this ridiculous primary/caucus way of doing things we have in this country: do you ever think we'll grow up as a society and establish something credible and reasonable when it comes to electing the leader of the free world? Fewer things make me more crazy than listening to sanctimonious corn farmers who feel it is their god-given right to shake the hand of every declared goofball twenty times before finally deciding on a guy whose supporters include despicable racist freaks advocating presidential assassination.
This is no way to elect a president.
# # # #
Who would have thought the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut would be interesting? Hey, Republicans aren't the only ones having fun with primaries.
Women’s groups think they’ve found a formidable female candidate they hope will replace retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Senate. As a veteran of Connecticut politics and an able campaigner, Susan Bysiewicz has everything they desire in a candidate. Next November is a make or break moment for women in the Senate with fully half the women in the Senate up for re-election. Women’s advocates are hoping to retain incumbents and even grow their numbers with candidates like Bysiewicz.
But the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is backing a different candidate, Rep. Chris Murphy. Headed by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the DSCC knows that women’s representation is an issue but still prefers Murphy.
One reason is that Murphy is an exemplary candidate. His fundraising figures and poll numbers trump the other contenders, though Bysiewicz isn’t down by a lot in the polls, and her fundraising numbers exhibit potential with the latest showing her at 1.25 million compared to Murphy’s $2.66 million.
I feel sorry for her already. In terms of campaigning, I've been on both sides -- the accepted establishment candidate, and the outsider looking in. Let me assure you, one is a lot better than the other. Guess which one.
With that being said, it sounds like Ms. Bysiewicz has some baggage:
In 2010, Bysiewicz, then the secretary of state, dropped her bid for the governorship to run for attorney general instead, upsetting supporters. Many assumed she would immediately begin a Senate run even if she became attorney general.
“I think that her ambition is, she wears it right on her sleeve, always has,” says Kevin Rennie, who served in the house with Susan as a Republican but now observes Connecticut politics as a blogger and columnist.
The real trouble for Bysiewicz began after she began her campaign for attorney general. Due to a technical active-practice requirement in Connecticut, Bysiewicz, a lawyer, didn’t qualify for the job. Because in her capacity as Secretary of State Bysiewicz oversaw elections, she was forced essentially to sue her own office in order to be able to run.The state supreme court eventually disqualified her. During this whole time, Bysiewicz was forced to sit for a series of taped depositions that were not flattering to the candidate.
“It was a kind of drama we just don’t often see in Connecticut politics,” says Rennie.
Well, I feel bad for her, but in this instance, it looks like the establishment made the right call.
All of that said, I am still more excited than I can say that Joe Lieberman will no longer be a United States Senator.
I understand his frustration, and have shared in it myself, on this very blog. But I have to think it a touch ironic that we're hatin' on a guy we elected on a promise to get us out of Iraq, based on his message that we're out of Iraq.
After several years of steep cuts to the state budget, including education spending, Sen. Jack Latvala said Tuesday the time is ripe for the state to look at raising new revenue, including closing a loophole on Internet sales taxes.
"I'm in the business world. I've been in the business world a long time. And I've never seen a business yet that survived and prospered by cutting," Latvala said at a legislative delegation breakfast organized by the Pinellas County School Board. "You have to plan for the future and you have to pay for the things you need to do.
"And I think our real challenge in Tallahassee this year is going to be whether we cut some more, or whether we finally say, 'It's enough, we got to find some ways to enhance the budget so we don't have to keep doing that.' "
I'm as liberal a goofball as you're likely to find, but credit where credit is due, and Republican Senator Latvala deserves a good deal of credit for saying -- on the record, in a time of redistricting, in a time when there's a budget shortfall, in a time when the governor is as anti-tax a govenror as you'll find -- what none of his Republican (and maybe even some of his Democratic) colleagues in the Florida Legislature would ever even dream about.
If the Governor is serious about beefing up education by $1 billion, he'd do well to work closely with Senator Latvala. Same message goes for the leadership in the Legislature.
No way will Florida lawmakers ban the use of cellphones while driving, says state Sen. Jack Latvala.
"You know the NRA saying that if they want my gun they'll pry it from my cold dead hands? That's what I think about banning cellphones and driving," said Latvala, R-Clearwater, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. "Absolutely no chance."
He made the comments Wednesday while driving and talking on his cellphone.
I don't get it.
Okay, I get it, but not really. I mean, the science is there:
Electronic devices caused 2,218 crashes in Florida this year through October, state records show. Another 685 were related to DVDs and similar devices. Texting contributed to 145 crashes. That adds up to 1.8 percent of all crashes, though it may underestimate the problem because police rely on drivers to admit they were using a cellphone.
Florida is one of 15 states that does not ban texting while driving, and the Republican-controlled Legislature has shown little interest in changing that.
In recent years, bills banning or restricting text messaging while driving were killed by lawmakers, many of whom use mobile phones while driving. Latvala, for example, said he returns most phone messages while driving.
Seems to me if the good Senator applied the same logic to this issue that he does education funding in our state, he might come to a different conclusion. Preventing a law which would make all Floridians safer just because you do it doesn't strike me as good public policy.
For starters, the board had five members in 1912, not the seven of today. And in 1912, politics of the time excluded women (goodbye, Commissioners Nancy Bostock, Susan Latvala and Karen Seel) and black people (no Commissioner Ken Welch).
This prompted Commissioner Welch to say, as you might expect, "I'm not feeling this," which, I can assure you, will lead to me writing him a campaign check as soon as I am able.
However, the quote of the day goes to Commissioner Nancy Bostock. I am obliged to point out that Ms. Bostock is a conservative member of the Commission, and I doubt you'd find much political ground shared between she and I. Nonetheless, this comment from the Commissioner is just downright brilliant:
"My idea is, I'll be in my office until you're ready to have a business meeting."
To which I say: thank you, ma'am. Thank you.
Look, Commissioner Bostock made what I believe was an unfortunate vote on the flouride in the water issue, but you have to give her the credit for having the courage of her convictions. Small government conservatives shouldn't be wasting everyone's time and money with ridiculous re-inactments. If Commissioner Morroni wants to go back in time, he can buy a DeLorean and a flux capacitor and figure it out himself. The rest of us want someone to run the county, one way or the other.
Really, it's enough to make you wonder if the first Pinellas County Commissioners had rotten teeth.
# # # #
I must tell you that this broke my heart a little bit: former State Senator Charlie Justice will not run against Republican State Rep. Jim Frishe in what promises to be a different District 13 after redistricting. From his letter to Senator Smith, posted on Facebook -- it's the best part, really:
The ten years I spent serving my community and state were incredibly rewarding. That fact has made this decision extremely difficult. However, my time home this past year has reminded me that it is true, there is no place like home. My time with my family, including my daughters, age six and nine, is precious, and I have seen the past few months that being engaged at the local level is just as rewarding as debating policy in Tallahassee. There is work to do here in Pinellas.
I salute you, sir. The only psychic draw I know of that's stronger than politics is the face of my daughter. I'm glad to see the same thing is true for a public servant I really respect and admire.
You know, that was a tough political lesson for me to learn: so much of it is about timing. You can be the most skilled politician in America, but if your timing sucks, if you're impatient, if you run in an off-year, you'll never make it past dog catcher. Sometimes you need to know when to say no.
Of course, a guy like Charlie Justice is also smart enough to know he'll have opportunities to say "yes" in the future as well.
There was a young man who just died at Florida A&M University because of band hazing. The school dismissed four students and is working on firing the band director.
I have to tell you, I've never understood the hazing thing. Hazing. I mean, as Deford says, let's call it what it really is: "institutional torture". You know, I went to a couple of fraternity rush parties back when I was in school. What a waste of time. I was a pretty stupid kid, but even I knew the frats were a waste of time and money. What really tipped me off was the hazing -- one of them pretty much outlined what we'd have to do (it involved a lot of drinking and a lot more communal nudity than I was comfortable with).
I'm sorry, but getting drunk, getting naked, and then getting spanked until I'm sober does not make me anyone's "brother". And getting tortured does not make you a better band member.
If you were outspoken against the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo, if you think that waterboarding is terrible businesses and no way to glean real intelligence, if you were outspoken on those issues, you ought to be just as outspoken on the issue of students and band-mates torturing each other. It needs to stop.
Redistricting is confusing, even for people who follow this stuff (like me). Steve takes a closer look at several of the Congressional seats, and his commentary is worth reading, for sure.
The truest thing he says, though, is that there are still a world of "twists and turns" ahead. Stay tuned.
# # # #
One thing I've noticed with respect to redistricting is a number of the proposals is that Florida's 13th Congressional District may get just a little less Republican. Given that Vern Buchanan is going to have a serious contest again Keith Fitzgerald, that's really good news for Keith -- and for Democrats. And for the people of the 13th Congressional District.
