Every Four Years, It’s Embarrassing to Live in Florida

Honestly, I don’t know what’s wrong with this state. Or maybe it isn’t just Florida – maybe it’s just Florida issues that I read about in the Orlando Sentinel. But, if I remember correctly, the whole “chad” business was reported nationally in 2004, when it held up Bush from assuming the victory in the Presidential Elections that year.

Florida fairly recently began offering voter registration opportunity at local Driver’s License bureaus. To the best of my knowledge, this was primarily to increase jury pools throughout the state. If I went back and researched, I would maybe find that it was decided that jury pools would be made up of both registered voters (which was the only source prior to the change) and of licensed drivers, the idea was that since licensed drivers automatically became part of the jury pool, anyway, they might as well also have the opportunity to become registered voters, as well.

Be that at it may, it was reported last week that a lot of newly registered voters (who, it was found later, had registered at Driver’s License bureaus) were angry at their polling places because they couldn’t vote the particular ballot they wanted to. No where in this report was it explained how party affiliation is determined when voters are registered in this manner. At the same time, I’m pretty sure that when I re-registered from no-party-affiliation to Democrat sometime within the last eight years, I had to mark that change, myself, on the application I filled out at the local Voter Registration office. I can’t imagine a different application being used.

The original article/report about the angst at polling places on Jan. 29th resulted in local pols posturing about the fact that Driver’s License personnel should be more thorough and helpful in obtaining these applications. My immediate reaction to that was “Excuse me?”
Then the Sentinel Editorial Board published an editorial endorsing that suggestion. Oh, brother. My outlook on this is very well represented by a Letter to the Editor that’s shown here:

whose responsibility is it?
February 5, 2008

Your editorial "End the Confusion" argues that voters need to be better informed about the requirement to be party affiliated in order to vote in a primary in Florida.

If people don't understand the simple arrangement that they need to be registered as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary, or the same for the Republican, then they're not informed enough to be voting at all.

I don't want individuals who can't figure that out contributing to deciding on our leadership or voting on constitutional amendments.
LENNIE BURKE. Winter Springs

Then, today, this article appears in the paper. Oh, brother hardly conveys what I’m feeling now.

OrlandoSentinel.com
CAMPAIGN 2008: SUPER TUESDAY
Some Floridians try to vote in presidential primary - a week too late
Robert Perez
Sentinel Staff Writer
February 6, 2008

Millions of Americans in 24 states turned out to vote in Super Tuesday presidential primaries from Georgia to Alaska. And some confused Florida voters tried, as well.

Elections offices across the state reported hundreds of calls from voters wanting to know where they could vote. Of course, Florida already had its presidential primary -- last week.

"We've had over 100 calls, at least, over the last two days," Kathy Adams, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County elections supervisor, said Tuesday.

In Central Florida, Orange County elections officials said they dealt with a combination of confused voters from two states. "One of my staffers has figured it out," said Orange County Elections Supervisor Bill Cowles. "They are California voters going online and looking for the Orange County [Calif.] election office and calling us instead."

Cowles conceded that his theory didn't explain the man who showed up at a polling site Tuesday morning in Orlando wanting to vote. Worse yet, the man told a security guard there that he had voted the previous week. Cowles and his fellow elections supervisors in Seminole and Osceola counties each reported at least two dozen similar calls.

Even Leon County, which saw some of the heaviest turnout for last week's primaries, has received its share of calls.

"It's funny that they want to argue with us about it," said Janet Olin, assistant elections supervisor. "We absolutely have had more than a handful, and they are a handful."

The rash of tardy voters is the latest twist in Florida's rocky efforts to pick Republican and Democratic nominees for president.

Rancor peaked across the state after last week's primaries when hundreds of people reported they were not allowed to vote for their preferred presidential candidate. Florida's closed-primary system, in which only voters registered to a party may cast ballots for that party's candidates, played a big part in the confusion.

But Tuesday's problems went beyond that.

One University of Central Florida political-science professor speculated that Tuesday's voter confusion may reflect the intense interest in this year's presidential race.

"There is a fairly large part of the public that doesn't pay much attention to politics," said Aubrey Jewett. "I suppose all the hype and talk about Super Tuesday finally convinced them to come out to vote."

Jewett said he isn't surprised by the misunderstanding. "Hopefully they will pay more attention to the process and will be ready to vote the first Tuesday in November -- and not the second Tuesday," he said.

Robert Perez can be reached at [email address redacted] or 407-322-1298.
Copyright © 2008, Orlando Sentinel

Although our family, as a group, rarely “talks politics,” I know I personally share viewpoints on the subject once in a while with a few of you. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are others in our clan who do the same.

But this year is different for me. I am disgusted, to say the least, with politics as they have been practiced by the George W. Bush Administration; I’ve even been frightened from time to time. As far as I’m concerned, most of the people currently in Congress are not much better. They may not be as blatantly dishonest or deceiving, but most of them owe too much to too many others and seldom vote their conscience, let alone their constituents’ desires – and certainly not to their constituents’ benefit.

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve voted every election since I became eligible, and, often, cast votes of “protest” in knowingly voting for candidates that I am certain won’t win a majority and who are often running against incumbents. But I’ve never been exercised about the state of the government and the influence of politics before these last eight years, and I am sick to death of what’s happened.

So, today, in my small way, I am dragging out my soapbox. Allen’s sister and I have been corresponding over the last few weeks regarding the primaries. When I opened my email yesterday, I had this email from her (and I’ve left in the joke she sent, too, in the event you, the reader, hadn’t heard it before); following that is my response.

From: Mona Fabricant
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:55 PM
To: Vicki Singletary
Subject: Senator's choice

Thought you might enjoy the story below.

I still don't know who to vote for on Tuesday. I was at a Democratic Club meeting this morning and they are supporting Hillary partly for the following reason: Since she is from NY, if elected president she will take care of NY State. I am not so sure.

Their second argument did not hold water; Hillary will bring the troops home.

She is the one who helped send them there and her rhetoric at the beginning of the campaign was she would bring them home slowly. In the meantime they keep dying and getting wounded.

Mona

HEAVEN OR HELL

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, Shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting Rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit heaven." So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would Never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell." So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."

From: Vicki Singletary
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:28 AM
To: 'Mona Fabricant'
Subject: RE: Senator's choice

The story is funny – and a little sad because it hits too close to home!

I think I mentioned before that I truly believe the country needs to get out of the 20 year cycle of Clinton/Bush. I can’t argue for a moment that Hillary has years more experience than Obama; it’s the truth. But my disgruntlement, if you will, is with the thought of 8 more years of same old, same old. And Hillary is so entrenched in same old, same old that I believe little will change if she is elected. I feel that way about all of the Republicans that are running. I have respect for McCain with his service in the Armed Forces and the experiences he had with that. Romney is a shell and a shill for the Bush people.

At any rate, I decided to once again go with a protest vote of sorts and voted for Obama. He may not get the nomination, but he’s making a good enough showing that it’s possible that he’ll at least get on the ticket, for whatever that’s worth. And the showing that he is making is a statement in itself, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t believe for a minute that if those same old, same old pols end up in the Administration they’ll acknowledge the unhappiness with same old, same old that is being/will be expressed, but at least I’ve had my say in the only way that counts.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!

Vicki

Mona wrote back later last evening to tell me that she and Paul have the same opinions and so does, apparently Frank Rich (about whom I know nothing). She told me she had read Rich’s Op-Ed column in the New York Times yesterday morning, and ended up voting for Obama in yesterday’s Primaries.

Mona sent me a link to Rich’s column. I’m printing it here, because it states very well much of my own opinion. I am very aware that most of my family has already had opportunity to vote in Primaries in their respective states. I believe Ohio’s Primaries are next week (?) and I’m not at all sure about Virginia. I’ve shared the email I wrote to Mona because it really does reflect my thoughts right now. I’m sharing the column because it’s another source of reference for those you who may still be in the decision-making process as you are preparing for Primaries, and for ALL of you in the event that Barack Obama should win the Presidential Nomination from the Democrat Party.

It felt good to do this, and I invite anyone who reads this to express his/her thoughts this way, whether those thoughts agree with mine or not. If we can’t be frank about this type of thing with those we love, who in the world should/could we express them to – and it be a meaningful expression?

Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama - New York Times

February 3, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama
By FRANK RICH

BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist
stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky
bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.

J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed a
country with some desire, however vague, for change. Mr. Goodwin and his fellow speechwriter Ted Sorensen helped with the poetry. Still, the placid America of 1960 was not obviously in the market for change. The outgoing president, Ike, was the most popular incumbent since F. D. R. The suburban boom was as glossy as it is now depicted in the television show “Mad Men.” The Red Panic of the McCarthy years was in temporary remission.

But Kennedy’s intuition was right. America’s boundless self-confidence was being rattled by (as yet) low-grade fevers: the surprise Soviet technological triumph of Sputnik; anti-American riots in even friendly non-Communist countries; the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. at an all-white restaurant in Atlanta; the inexorable national shift from manufacturing to white-collar jobs. Kennedy bet his campaign on, as he put it, “the single assumption that the American people are uneasy at the present drift in our national course” and “that they have the will and strength to start the United States moving again.”

For all the Barack Obama-J. F. K. comparisons, whether legitimate or
over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obama’s weaknesses
resemble Kennedy’s at least as much as his strengths. But to compensate for
those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J. F. K. lacked in 1960.
There’s nothing vague about the public’s desire for national renewal in 2008,
with a reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the
population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall
Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.

Either of the two Democratic contenders will swing the pendulum. Their marginal policy differences notwithstanding, they are both orthodox liberals. As the party’s voters in 22 states step forward on Tuesday, the overriding question
they face, as defined by both contenders, is this: Which brand of change is more
likely, in Kennedy’s phrase, to get America moving again?

Lost in the hoopla over the Teddy and Caroline Kennedy show last week was the parallel endorsement of Hillary Clinton by three of Robert Kennedy’s children. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed article, they answered this paramount question as many Clinton supporters do (and as many John Edwards supporters also did). The “loftiest poetry” won’t solve America’s crises, they wrote. Change can be achieved only by a president “willing to engage in a fistfight.”

That both Clintons are capable of fistfighting is beyond doubt, at least on
their own behalf in a campaign. But Mrs. Clinton isn’t always a fistfighter when
governing. There’s a reason why Robert Kennedy’s children buried the Iraq war in
a single clause (and never used the word Iraq) deep in their endorsement. They
know that their uncle Teddy, unlike Mrs. Clinton, raised his fists to lead the
Senate fight against the Iraq misadventure at the start. They know too that less
than six months after “Mission Accomplished,” Senator Kennedy called the war “a
fraud” and voted against pouring more money into it. Senator Clinton raised a
hand, not a fist, to vote aye.

In what she advertises as 35 years of fighting for Americans, Mrs. Clinton can point to some battles won. But many of them were political campaigns for Bill Clinton: seven even before his 1992 presidential run. The fistfighting required if she is president may also often be political. As Mrs. Clinton herself says, she has been in marathon combat against the Republican attack machine. Its antipathy will be increased exponentially by the co-president who would return to the White House with her on Day One.

It’s legitimate to wonder whether sweeping policy change can be accomplished on that polarized a battlefield. A Clinton presidency may end up a Democratic
mirror image of Karl Rove’s truculent style of G.O.P. governance: a 50 percent
plus 1 majority. Seven years on, that formula has accomplished little for the
country beyond extending and compounding the mistake of invading Iraq. As was
illustrated by the long catalog of unfinished business in President Bush’s final
State of the Union address, this has not been a presidency that, as Mrs. Clinton
said of L. B. J.’s, got things done.

The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled. Implicit in this criticism is a false choice — that voters have to choose between his pretty words on one hand and Mrs. Clinton’s
combative, wonky incrementalism on the other.

There’s a third possibility, of course: A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus operandi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microinitiatives that have been a hallmark of Clintonism. He also suggests, in his most explicit policy invocation of J. F. K., that he can enlist the young en masse in a push for change by ramping up national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

His critics argue back that he is a naïve wuss who will give away the store.
They have mocked him for offering to hold health-care negotiations so
transparent (and presumably feckless) that they can be broadcast on C-Span.
Obama supporters point out that Mrs. Clinton’s behind-closed-doors 1993
health-care task force was a fiasco.

A better argument might be that transparency could help smoke out the
special-interest players hiding in Washington’s crevices. You’d never know from
Mrs. Clinton’s criticisms of subprime lenders that one of the most notorious,
Countrywide, was a client as recently as October of Burson-Marsteller, the
public relations giant where her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is the sitting
chief executive. Other high-level operatives in her campaign belong to Dewey
Square Group, an outfit that just last year provided lobbying services for
Countrywide.

The question about Mr. Obama, of course, is whether he is tough enough to stand up to those in Washington who oppose real reform, whether Republicans or
special-interest advocates like, say, Mr. Penn. The jury is certainly out,
though Mr. Obama has now started to toughen his critique of the Clintons without
sounding whiny. By framing that debate as a choice between the future and the
past, he is revisiting the J. F. K. playbook against Ike.

What we also know is that, unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not hesitant to
take on John McCain. He has twice triggered the McCain temper, in spats over
ethics reform in 2006 and Mr. McCain’s Baghdad market photo-op last year. In
Thursday’s debate, Mr. Obama led an attack on Mr. McCain twice before Mrs.
Clinton followed with a wan echo. When Bill Clinton promised that his wife and
Mr. McCain’s friendship would ensure a “civilized” campaign, he may have been
revealing more than he intended about the perils for Democrats in that matchup.
As Tuesday’s vote looms, all that’s certain is that today’s pollsters and
pundits have so far gotten almost everything wrong. Mr. McCain’s campaign had
been declared dead. Mrs. Clinton has gone from invincible to near-death to
near-invincible again. Mr. Obama was at first not black enough to sweep black
votes and then too black to get a sizable white vote in South Carolina.
Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was “a single significant failure”
by Kennedy or “an act of political daring” by his opponents for his man to lose
— especially in the general election, where he faced the vastly more experienced
Nixon, the designated heir of a popular president. That’s as good a snapshot as
any of where we are right now, while we wait for the voters to decide if they
will take what Mrs. Clinton correctly describes as a “leap of faith” and follow
another upstart on to a new frontier.

[Note: Edited by micah 2008-Feb-07 8:50am to fix some paragraph breaks and redact personal email addresses. No changes to content were made.]