No Blast Off! Radio until Nov. 23

Well, it appears my semi-hiatus from blogging is continuing. I'm in a few-weeks-long process of moving back to central Florida, then of course there's Thanksgiving.... Bottom line is that because of travel and personal priorities, blogging is likely to be pretty sparse here through the remainder of November.

As for the radio show, quite by accident, I'm traveling on three of the next four Mondays. As such, the show schedule for the rest of the month looks like this:

Nov. 9 (today): NO SHOW
Nov. 16: NO SHOW
Nov. 23: Webcast planned at regular time, 4:00 pm Eastern
Nov. 30: NO SHOW

Although I'm away from blogging for the most part for a couple more weeks, I am tweeting pretty regularly (some might say TOO regularly), including some livetweeting as events warrant of the landfall of Hurricane Tropical Storm Ida tonight and tomorrow, as I'm presently en route to Pensacola Taintville™ to spend a few days vacating my erstwhile home there.

So please keep up with me on Twitter if you like, if for no other reason than to make sure I'm still alive, and thanks as always for your patience during this tumultuous time. But don't be surprised to see the occasional blog post pop up in this space. After all, there's rarely a hiatus in Republicans doing dumb things....

No Blast Off! Radio today

As I mentioned the other day, I'm in the process of moving back to central Florida (at least temporarily) this week. In fact, today's the day I'm actually moving my belongings from a south Florida storage unit, where they've been ensconced for ten months, up I-95 to my new home.

Therefore, I regret that there will be no Blast Off! Radio webcast today. But I'll plan to be back with you next week for all the snarky goodness that you've come to know and love tolerate.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Jeff Miller: opposes House health care bill but hasn't read it

I'm not sure whether it's because he won't read it or can't read it, but U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Land That Time Forgot) has managed yet again to make me wonder how he got elected to Congress in the first place. He hasn't read the House Democrats' proposed health care reform bill, but he still knows he doesn't like it:

The bill, crafted by House Democratic leaders, would provide insurance by 2019 to 36 million Americans who are currently uninsured, though the details, are, of course, numerous.

The bill contains about 400,000 words — more than double the words in the New Testament.

"I haven't started reading it yet," Miller said. "And anyone who says they've read it and know what's in it is not being 100 percent truthful."

Still, Miller said that what he knows of the legislation disturbs him. He said the bill, which was lauded by President Barack Obama, will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare.

Look, I know it's a huge, complex bill. Health care reform is a huge, complex problem. But Congressman Know-It-All here hasn't even begun to read the bill, and yet he opposes it because it "will raise taxes, cost jobs and cut Medicare." Do you have any proof of that, Rep. Miller? I mean, in the bill itself ... because if you're going to take it apart, you should rely on more than merely your blind hatred of President Obama to back up your claims.

I'm not saying Rep. Miller is going to support the bill once he reads it (if he ever does). In fact, I'm quite certain he'd oppose it even if he knew it backwards and forwards. (And, incidentally, Jeff, how the hell do you know that anyone who says they read and understood the bill is lying? What a pretentious ass ...) But what I am saying is that it would be nice if certain members of Congress would take a little time to become acquainted with a piece of legislation before attacking it.

I know -- in the case of Jeff Miller, that's asking way, way too much.

Chartered in the 17th Century, embracing 21st Century diversity

No one ever will mistake my undergraduate alma mater, the College of William and Mary, for PCU. "The College," which has produced such diverse graduates as Jon Stewart '84 of "The Daily Show," former FCC chairman and noted wingnut Michael Powell '85 (newly announced as a director of internet dinosaur AOL), actor/comedian Patton Oswalt '91, actresses Glenn Close '74 and Linda Lavin '59, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates '65, the NFL's active career interception leader Darren Sharper '97, Super Bowl champion head coach Mike Tomlin '95, and me '87 (not to mention infamous wingnut plagiarist Ben Domenech, who never graduated, and some old dude named Thomas Jefferson '62 ... 1762), traditionally has been a fairly conservative place, where not too long ago the Board of Visitors -- led, not coincidentally, by the aforementioned Powell -- disgracefully drove out an effective, but liberal and therefore controversial, college president on purely ideological grounds.

But every so often, you find a kernel of openness at W&M -- an indication that perhaps all is not lost. In a state where, unfortunately, it looks like intolerant ultra-wingnut Bob McDonnell will be the next governor, The College did something historic last week in the name of tolerance and diversity: its students elected a transgender person to the Homecoming Court.

Jessee Vasold ’11 made history at the College of William and Mary Wednesday when ze was announced as the school’s first transgender homecoming queen, representing the Class of 2011.

Vasold identifies as gender-queer and prefers to be referred to with gender neutral pronouns: “ze” in place of he or she and “zir” rather than him or her. Vasold has also created a Facebook account for a female identity, Kathy Middlesex.

Friends suggested that Vasold run for homecoming queen. Even though Vasold thought that there was a good chance at being elected, Vasold said the win was still surprising to hear.

“We figured it would be something different for the school to go through, something that hasn’t happened too often,” Vasold said. “I was kind of surprised that I won because I knew the other girls running. I know that they’re really friendly; they’re wonderful people, so I was unsure.”

[...]

According to [Junior Class President Mike] Tsidulko, there is no rule against men or women running for opposite roles. Students who made nominations were simply asked to describe how the candidate exemplified Tribe pride.

“In general, most descriptions were about what activities they were involved in on campus or spiritedness at sporting events or any other kind of campus activity,” Senior Class President Alyssa Wallace said.

Those students nominated with a description were put on the ballot.

“It basically came down to nominations,” Wallace said. “Jessee was nominated, Jessee’s peers voted and Jessee won. That’s really all there is to it.”

It may be that Vasold (left) was a member of the Homecoming Court, representing the Class of 2011, with a senior (Class of 2010) actually taking the title of Homecoming Queen -- the sources are unclear on that count -- but that minor quibble aside, this is a huge step forward for William & Mary and for recognition of its long-active GLBT community. Naturally, the comments on the article were somewhat mixed (although the "anti" position was dominated by a single vulgar, closed-minded person), but by and large, there appears to be a real sense that The College is a changing, if not changed, place, not unlike the country as a whole. Even College President Taylor Reveley was supportive, commenting that "[it's] a little more publicity than normal for a homecoming queen, but it's just fine." From a personal standpoint, even I've discovered today that the archaic, anachronistic labels used to identify people are beginning to fade away as we allow each individual the freedom to identify as he or she or ze sees fit ... I wasn't familiar with the terms ze and zir before.

How refreshing. And, frankly, how surprising -- yet how heartening -- to see this happening at, of all places, my dear alma mater. I'm very proud to be a W&M graduate today. Congratulations to Jessee ... and congratulations to the entire College community. Welcome to the 21st Century. And ... Go Tribe!

(cross-posted with introduction at Daily Kos)

Coffee with the enemy

Okay, the title is a little harsh ... really, I'm kidding. Mostly. ;)

But I took a few minutes this morning to swing by Pensacola's landmark diner, the Coffee Cup, for, well, a cup of coffee with GOP U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio. I didn't have time to snag any photographic evidence for you -- yes, I know, a dedicated DFH blogger would have gotten there on time -- but I did have an opportunity to introduce myself to the former state House speaker and chat for a brief time just before he departed, and at least I livetweeted the encounter. So there.

I'm not sure how many people were at the Coffee Cup specifically to see Rubio and I can't say whether folks were there but left before I arrived. I saw perhaps a dozen individuals there, including several reporters plus a crew from a local TV station, who wouldn't otherwise have stopped in for the restaurant's renowned breakfast today but for the candidate's visit. But he was working the room like a champ and, given Pensacola's conservatism, on which I frequently have commented here, I'm sure he felt right at home.

Seriously, although (as I said to Marco today) he and I disagree on essentially everything -- even his beloved Gators -- I wanted to welcome him to Pensacola (after all, it's still my home for a few more days) and compliment him on what I believe has been a hell of a good campaign thus far. Marco and I have communicated some on Twitter over the last few months, and he was kind enough to reiterate that he found this blog "interesting" even though we disagree. In the interest of bipartisanship, he also observed that a close friend of his is Democratic attorney general candidate Dan Gelber; I smiled and responded that I could identify with that, since I'm dating a Republican. As he left, Marco jovially expressed the hope that we could agree on one thing sometime. Let's see .... he's a right-wing Republican and a Gators and Dolphins fan. Nope, not likely. (I kid, I kid!)

The larger point, though, is that I was sincere in my compliments on his campaign. No one seems to give Rubio much of a chance against the political juggernaut of Charlie Crist, but I have disagreed with that assessment for months now. As early as last May, I said that Rubio had a decent shot against Crist, and his strategy has been, to my mind, pretty much perfect: focus on the party faithful, generally extremists who are disillusioned with Crist's perceived moderate stances on issues like accepting federal stimulus money and being seen with President Obama (the horror!), and enhance name recognition by handily winning county Republican straw polls and collecting the resulting headlines in the press. Moreover, who are the people who dominate primary voting? Party loyalists, of course -- precisely the kind of people who will vote for Rubio in the Senate primary next year.

Besides all that, there increasingly is a general feeling in the state, among Democrats and Republicans alike, that Charlie Crist is a failure as governor. He wavers between moderation and extremism, properly accepting much-needed federal stimulus money on the one hand and then selling out Florida's precious natural resources on the other. As soon as he does one sensible thing, like welcome President Obama to Florida last February, he has to do something moronic like snub the president the next time around to show Republicans he's "one of them." I don't give Republicans credit for much (except destroying America's economy, running Florida's public education system into the ground, etc.), but I'll say this: they know that Charlie's a waffler. And they like the straightforward (albeit wingnutty) approach that Marco Rubio takes. Plus, I have to admit: Marco seems like a pretty nice guy as well -- for a Gator/Dolphin fan Republican, anyway. (Again, I kid!)

I should add that it was a nice surprise to see the Miami Herald's Beth Reinhard again, after our panel discussion at the Florida Democratic Party convention earlier this month. She asked me what I thought of Rubio's campaign, and I answered that, for the reasons noted above, rank-and-file Republicans (read: wingnuts) more and more are looking at Rubio as a legitimate challenger to Crist; as someone to carry the "conservative" banner on their behalf. Do I think Rubio, if he were to win the GOP nomination, could beat Kendrick Meek in the general election? Of course not -- he'd get stomped because Florida as a whole is looking forward politically, not backward. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in 2010 is not a done deal for Charlie Crist. And as national news media are beginning to see, Marco Rubio is a candidate worth watching.

Crist: backpedalling from Obama as fast as he can

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP still has glaring historical error on website

Okay, maybe I'm too pedantic for my own good. But if I were running a website for a major political party, especially a site for which the party paid $1.4 million, I'd want to make damn well sure everything on the site was correct and accurate, wouldn't you?

Apparently the Republican National Committee, which produced a brand-new GOP.com absolutely riddled with errors, doesn't agree. Remember the historical mistake I told you about a couple of weeks ago, where they mistakenly identified Republican U.S. Sen. Hiram Revels of Mississippi, the first African-American member of that august body, by his middle name: "Hiram Rhodes?"

Well, guess what? It's still wrong.

click on image for larger version

I included the oh-so-cute bit about the president's visit to Florida today just to show you that I got the screen capture today; it's not manipulated in any way. Go see for yourself (you may have to hit F5 until you see "Rhodes").

Are you kidding me? They've had two weeks to fix it. After all the grief they took for putting up a piss-poor website, and after all the time someone must have expended trying to get everything right, they still haven't fixed an image that will show up on every page as a header at one time or another?! Not to mention ... I publicized this two weeks ago. It's not like it would be a surprise if they were, you know, paying attention.

Man, the RNC is dumber than I thought.

Coming full circle

I have an announcement to make: Blast Off! is undergoing another change of location. Or, to be more precise, I am.

Finding it difficult to secure gainful employment in my desired locales (greater Orlando, the Tampa Bay area, or south Florida in particular) while residing all the way up in Taintville™ (the honorary capital, naturally, of America's Taint™) and, more importantly, finding it increasingly difficult to handle being 520 miles from my children (not to mention the rigor and expense of the 1,000-mile-plus round trips to see them a couple of times a month), I have decided to move, at least temporarily, back to central Florida -- or, in Blast Off! parlance, about mid-Wang™.

In fact, in the grandest spirit of "never say never" -- a phrase with which I have become all too familiar -- I actually am moving back for the time being to the place where it all started: Brevard County. Yes, it was there that Blast Off! got its start and, indeed, from which it got its name, as I sorely needed to "blast off" at the crazy wingnuttery in which I was immersed there from 2004 to 2006. I once swore I'd never live in Brevard again -- nothing against the sane people there, but merely a recognition that sanity unfortunately is scarce there. But, as noted above: never say never.

(Truth be told, in hindsight, I would be hard-pressed to ascertain whether Brevard County is more or less wingnutty than northwest Florida. I guess ultimately they're about equally wingnutty -- which is to say a lot -- but the character of the wingnuttiness differs, with northwest Florida being somewhat more fundie Christianist wingnutty than Brevard. It's true that both, though, have a heaping helping of militarist wingnut ... but I digress.)

Anyway, as a result, blogging and radio-ing will be somewhat sporadic for the next week or two as I get settled. I also should add for anyone concerned that my beloved Miss July supports my decision completely, which is a big load off of my mind, and of course I'll continue to be a regular visitor to greater Taintville™ to see her and the many other friends that I've had the good fortune to get to know during my all-too-brief sojourn here in The Land That Time Forgot.

But, as of next Sunday, it will be farewell to America's Taint™ for me and hello again to the birthplace of Blast Off! (well, at least until someone hires me). As always, though, if anyone is looking for an experienced and accomplished attorney/fundraiser/commentator/curmudgeon ... well, you know where to find me.

Opt-out: still a bad idea for Florida

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

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

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Is it 2010 yet?

We're still more than a year away from the 2010 election, but things are really beginning to heat up here in America's Wang™ despite the cooler temperatures. While the gubernatorial race between state CFO Alex Sink and state attorney general Bill McCollum hasn't really hit its stride yet, there are plenty of fireworks to keep Florida political junkies interested in the U.S. Senate and state AG races.

On the Republican side, the Senate race finds Gov. Charlie Crist still comfortably out in front, but former state House Speaker Marco Rubio is exploiting a few chinks in the Guv's armor. Crist has been working hard to shore up his conservative credentials, but Rubio continues to win straw polls of party faithful in counties across the state. People have scoffed at me, but I've been saying for months that Rubio has a solid shot at winning the Republican nomination, and it's the disaffected conservatives who still run the state GOP who are flocking to him ... and those very same conservatives are the ones who are most likely to vote in the Republican primary next summer. Rubio has an uphill battle, but once the rank-and-file Republicans know who he is, they seem to like him pretty well -- and that spells trouble with a capital "T" for Empty Chair Charlie.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek has enjoyed near-exclusivity in his drive for the nomination, with only a challenge from the likeable yet heavily outnumbered Kevin Burns realistically standing in his way ... until recently. Suddenly, former Miami mayor Maurice Ferre has thrown his hat into the ring ... but there are serious questions about where Ferre's loyalty really lies. Why is Ferre surrounding himself with Republican operatives and Democrats who have worked for Crist in the past? It's an important question, and it deserves an answer ... and you'll get some answers on this afternoon's edition of Blast Off! Radio.

We'll also point and laugh at the Republicans in the state Attorney General race, where GOP voters have an unenviable choice between a Palinesque quitter and an ethically-challenged lieutenant governor -- Holly Benson and Jeff Kottkamp, respectively -- as their nominee for Florida's chief law enforcement officer. The irony is rich ... and so is the schadenfreude!

Of course, we'll undoubtedly have the usual look at health care reform and what's going on in Washington, but we'll also talk some today about the offshore drilling debate in Florida and why you won't "pay less" if we "drill here" and "drill now." We'll discuss the absolutely idiotic "birther" movement and explore why such an utterly false and discredited allegation keeps getting attention (hint: we don't have a liberal media!), and we'll revisit our old friends in Pace, Fla., to see what's next on the horizon in the Christianist assault on the Constitution.

It's sure to be an hour full of insight, intrigue, and hopefully a little insolence. But, as always, you make the show work with your calls, chats, emails, and tweets. It's unbelievably easy to be a part of the show -- in fact, you're just a click away:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

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

So, what's stopping you? Please join me today for Florida's best online radio show, Blast Off! Radio, for a unique and entertaining look at the issues facing the state, the country, and you.

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Drill here, drill now, you're dumb

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarence Thomas: oral arguments are pointless

I guess it's not surprising when a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who hasn't asked a question of a lawyer in oral arguments since 2006 says that he doesn't see a reason even to have oral arguments. But as a lawyer, I find it a little distressing to hear it said so plainly.

Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking yesterday at the University of Alabama, shed a little light on his reticence, but he went further in suggesting that justices basically decided cases on the briefs, making oral arguments unnecessary:

Thomas -- who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years -- said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.

"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama.

Thomas didn't name names, but fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia generally is considered the court's most aggressive questioner during oral arguments. President Barack Obama's lone nominee so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, isn't afraid to ask questions either.

Thomas scoffed at the idea that the justices try to use questions to influence the opinions of fellow members of the court.

"All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me."

Now, contrary to the article's conclusion, I don't necessarily think Justice Thomas was criticizing his fellow justices, especially his ideological near-twin, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia. Rather, I think he was criticizing the process -- and that's where I have a problem.

I clerked for an appellate court after law school, and I can recall at least one instance where oral arguments changed my judge's mind. While, granted, that makes more of a difference on a three-judge panel (as my court was) than with nine SCOTUS justices, the fact is that it matters. Or it should.

I'm hoping that Justice Thomas' lame, disrespectful attitude is not shared by his eight colleagues on the High Court. Boy, conservatives sure are comfortable with foregone conclusions, aren't they? I guess if they were in charge, they'd just hand the World Series trophy to the Yankees now. Why bother playing the games?

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 14 — Windfall for the wingnuts

When last we visited the constitutional clusterfuck that is the Pace (Fla.) school prayer issue, we learned that after securing a remarkably undeserved victory in federal district court, the crazed fundies who populate Santa Rosa County next planned to go after the consent decree itself -- the very agreement the county school district signed wherein they vowed to, you know, obey the U.S. Constitution and not have organized prayer in public schools. Leading this fight, as they did for the three Pace High School administrators cleared of wrongdoing, would be Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a legal organization (in the loosest sense of the term) made up of fundamentalist whackjobs who actually want nothing whatsoever to do with liberty. Instead, according to their website, they are focused on "restoring the culture one case at a time by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family," which naturally means intruding into our bedrooms, our classrooms, our bodies, and our very lives to push their special brand of Christianist uniformity. (Obviously their definition of "culture" differs from that of normal people.)

Well, thanks to all those good folks in Pace and elsewhere who ponied up over $73,000 for the administrators' defense, which cost barely more than $8,500*, Liberty Counsel will get the difference:

The Lay-Freeman Defense Fund, headed by Milton insurance agent Robert Smith, raised $73,388 for Lay and Freeman's defense against charges that they violated a court order to discontinue the practice of faculty-led religious activities at school events and on school property.

"From the outset, we told people who contributed that any money left over from the legal defense fund would be donated to Liberty Counsel," Smith said.

[...]

"We're certainly pleased with the donation," Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said on Thursday.

[...]

"There's a lot more activity we will do on this case," he said. "We expect to spend more to prepare for this trial that is coming up."

Liberty Counsel is representing Christian Educators Association International, which is seeking to change the agreement between the ACLU and the School District. A hearing is set for Dec. 2 at the federal courthouse in Pensacola.

Yeah, I'm sure you're pleased with the donation, Mat. Just in time to do more of your nefarious, freedom-hating work, like trying to push Christianist prayer back into public schools or encouraging your deluded followers to pray for a liberal (see logo at right). What a bunch of sick fucks.

But you've definitely got one thing going for you on December 2, Mat: home-court advantage. It's clear the political and personal pressure your followers put on the federal court in Pensacola -- not the law -- won you the earlier decision ... and you're probably going to turn the screws again. So much for freedom.

---

* Curiously, the article says $8,908 went to Pensacola attorney Barry Beroset, but according to the same article, $73,388 was raised and $64,840 was donated to Liberty Counsel -- a difference of $8,548. Not sure where the discrepancy comes from ... or whether it really matters. Just an observation ...

Maurice Ferre: GOP plant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Blast Off! Radio today

Due to travel and, frankly, sheer exhaustion, I'm going to have to cancel Blast Off! Radio for today.

Normal crappy blogging should resume tomorrow at the latest, and barring catastrophe of some kind, the crappy radio show will be back in its regular time slot next week.

Thanks for your patience.