This year’s ballot is also one of the most partisan and legislatively-influenced in history, in that every one of the amendments was introduced by the Florida State Legislature and nearly all of them were supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. None were placed on the ballot by citizens’ groups.

Amendment 1: Health Care Services

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or an employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from a health care provider; permit a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service…

In plain English

Florida will “repeal” the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obama-care”). It aims to prevent laws that compel a person or employer to obtain or provide health care coverage.

 Why vote YES?

Supporters claim the federal government’s health care reforms abuse the power of government. They believe that people and employers should not be required to obtain or provide health insurance through a government program and that private insurance companies do a better job of providing health care.

Why vote NO?

Opponents maintain this amendment may not do what it is intended to do because the U.S. Constitution will override the state effort (“Supremacy Clause”) to repeal it. They also believe that federal health care reforms allow more people to be covered, reduce the spiraling costs of health insurance, and offer an alternative to private insurance that does not cover everyone or people with pre-existing health conditions.

 The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 2: Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to Section 6 of Article VII and the creation of Section 32 of Article XII of the State Constitution to expand the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013.

In plain English

Allows for property tax discounts for disabled veterans.

 Why vote YES?

Veterans served the nation and many struggle with disabilities. The property tax discount will help them financially by reducing the taxes they pay.

Why vote NO?

Florida has budget troubles in that it does not raise enough revenue and spends too much money. This measure will further limit revenues collected that might be spent on needed public services.

The measure passed both the Florida Senate and House unanimously.

Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation

 Wording 

This proposed amendment to the State Constitution replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Under the amendment, state revenues, as defined in the amendment, collected in excess of the revenue limitation must be deposited into the budget stabilization fund until the fund reaches its maximum balance…

In plain English

Replaces existing limits on the amount of revenue the state can collect with a new, strict formula based on inflation and population changes. This new formula will likely limit the state’s revenues and therefore limit government programs.

Why vote YES?

Proponents feel that government is collecting too much revenue and they want to limit the amount of funds collected that are available to be spent on government programs. Any funds that exceed the revenue limits go into Florida’s “rainy day” fund.

Why vote NO?

Opponents, including the AARP, League of Women Voters, and others worry that the “revenue cap” could result in cuts to essential government services, government payrolls, and funding for schools.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 4: Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Non-homestead Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal

 Wording 

This would amend Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 4 and Section 6. It also would amend Article XII… In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified non-homestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases. Therefore, this amendment provides that the Legislature may, by general law, provide that the assessment of homestead and specified non-homestead property may not increase if the just value of that property is less than the just value of the property on the preceding January 1, subject to any adjustment in the assessed value due to changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to such property which are assessed as provided by general law…

In plain English

Amends commercial and non-homestead (second homes) property taxes by mandating that governments would not be able to increase the assessed value of homestead property if the “fair market value” of the property decreases. It also provides an additional homestead exemption and shifts part of the tax burden from commercial owners to residential owners.

Why vote YES?

Proponents include developers and builders who do not want to see property taxes increase while the “fair market value” of property decreases.

Why vote NO?

Opponents include municipal and county governments because it will reduce revenues needed to operate public services. Some advocates of public schools oppose it because school funding through property taxes will decline.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it, although a few Democrats in the House backed the measure.

Amendment 5: State Courts

Wording 

Proposing a revision of Article V of the State Constitution relating to the judiciary. The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The Constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by the general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement… [of] a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a … majority vote… Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court…

In plain English

Gives the Legislature increased control over the judicial branch and requires that all appointments to the Florida Supreme Court be subject to Senate confirmation. It also divides the current court into a Supreme Court of Civil Appeals and a Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals, each with five appointed justices. The most senior justices would be assigned to the latter court.

Why vote YES?

Supporters include the Florida Chamber of Commerce. It is argued that the efficiency of the courts would be enhanced by splitting the duties of the high courts. Proponents also support the notion that the Legislature (through the Senate) plays a role in confirming all appointments to the court.

Why vote NO?

The Florida Bar and judges across the state oppose the measure, believing it disrupts the balance of power by providing the Legislature with too much control over the courts (under this amendment, they only need a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to change the law) and creates an unusual and unnecessary two-court system. It is also argued that the measure attempts to “politicize” the criminal court by pushing older, “liberal” justices to the civil court.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

 Amendment 6: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions

Wording 

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the U.S. Constitution.

In plain English

Disallows public funds for any abortion or for health benefits that include any coverage of abortion. It also states that Florida’s Constitution cannot be interpreted to include broader rights to abortion than what is contained in the U.S. Constitution

 Why vote YES?

Various pro-life groups support the measure and maintain that abortion is not a woman’s right but that it is murder. They also believe that no public funds should be used in any abortion service.

Why vote NO?

Various pro-choice groups oppose the measure and maintain that women have reproductive rights and the state government should not interfere with personal health care decisions.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 7: Religious Freedom

 NOTE: Amendment 7 was removed from the ballot by court order on grounds that it was unconstitutional. However, the legislature passed a law that gave the Florida Attorney General the authority to rewrite the proposal. This was done by AG Pam Bondi and the measure was placed back on the ballot as Amendment 8.

Amendment 8: Religious Freedom

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, government benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

In plain English

Using public dollars for religious events is against the law, but this amendment would overturn the law and allow taxpayer money for religious purposes.

Why vote YES?

Supporters claim that faith-based groups are discriminated against because they cannot use taxpayer money and may be barred from participating in public programs in the capacity of a religious organization. This amendment would give religious organizations full access to government services and programs.

Why vote NO?

Opponents worry that the measure attempts to repeal of the age-old separation of church and state. It would allow taxpayer funds to go to religious organizations and public education money to go to religious schools.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

 Amendment 9:  Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder

 Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service-connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty. The amendment authorizes the Legislature to totally exempt or partially exempt such surviving spouse’s homestead property from ad valorem taxation…

In plain English

Authorizes the Legislature to totally or partially exempt surviving spouses of military veterans and first responders who die in the line of duty from paying property taxes.

Why vote YES?

Members of our armed forces and first responders put their lives on the line for the public and this amendment allows the Legislature to financially assist the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran or first responder by reducing their property taxes.

Why vote NO?

Florida has budget troubles in that it does not raise enough revenue and spends too much money. This measure will further limit revenues collected that might be spent on needed public services.

This amendment passed both chambers of the state legislature with a unanimous vote.

Amendment 10: Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property if the assessed value of an owner’s tangible personal property is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000…

In plain English

Provides an exemption from local government taxes on personal property that is valued between $25,000 and $50,000.

Why vote YES?

Supporters claim Florida’s citizens should pay less in taxes, which frees up citizens to spend more money, thus stimulating the economy. They also feel government is too big. Less taxes means less government programs and services.

Why vote NO?

Opponents claim that Florida’s budget troubles will only get worse with less revenue, and necessary public services will be cut.

Amendment 11: Additional Homestead Exemption: Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value

 Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.

In plain English

Authorizes counties and municipalities to offer additional tax exemptions on homes of low-income seniors.

Why vote YES?

Opponents argue that seniors on a fixed income need the relief offered by this additional tax exemption.

Why vote NO?

Opponents claim that Florida’s budget troubles will only get worse with less revenue, and necessary public services will be cut. They also worry that, with so many amendments on the ballot that reduce revenues, even the most essential public services will be in jeopardy.

Amendment 12: Appointment of Student Body President to Board of Governors of the State University System

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to replace the president of the Florida Student Association with the chair of the council of state university student body presidents as the student member of the Board of Governors of the State University System and to require that the Board of Governors organize such council of state university student body presidents.

In plain English

Revises the selection process for the student member of the Board of Governors of the State University System. The student representative used to be the president of the Florida Student Association but would now be the chair of a council of state university student body presidents.

Why vote YES?

Proponents claim the process is more democratic because the representative to the Board of Governors will come from a new association of student government presidents. These individuals are students who were elected by their campuses.

Why vote NO?

Opponents believe the current system works fine and does not need to be reformed.

Robert Watson, Ph.D. has published 34 books on American politics and history and serves as Professor and Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University, site of the third/final presidential debate

Good luck with that.

Following the money trail in Florida is like taking a trip through a Rube Goldberg machine.

As Sunday’s report by Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers showed, Florida’s loose campaign finance laws allow special interests to pump unlimited amounts of money into state and local races.

The committees that funnel the money don’t have to track the candidates they are supporting or attacking — and that is awfully convenient for the donors throwing around wads of cash.

If voters can’t draw a straight line between donor and candidate, then they can’t be sure who is peddling influence.

The committees also let politicians and donors wash their hands of dirty campaign tactics while still benefiting from them.

That, apparently, is how state lawmakers like it. They sure haven’t made much effort to change the practice (which, at the state level, predates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling).

Let’s use state Sen. Joe Negron, a Republican from Stuart, as a case study.

As staff writer Jonathan Mattise reported Sunday, Negron runs or helps run four “committees of continuous existence,” which can accept unlimited donations, then send them to other groups to buy political ads.

Negron’s four committees have raised a combined $8.5 million. He runs three of them with other state lawmakers and one of them (Florida Conservative Action Committee) himself, records show.

Among the more interesting donations on the four committees’ books: $50,000 from Geo Group Inc., which supports prison privatization; $40,000 from the casino company Genting New York, which has pushed to bring casino gambling to South Florida; and about $245,000 from Big Sugar (either U.S. Sugar Corp. or Florida Crystals).

The Big Sugar contributions are particularly notable.

Negron has recently become more vocal about stopping the dumping of polluted Lake Okeechobee water into the St. Lucie River — an issue in which Big Sugar is deeply intertwined. Sugar growers own the land south of Lake O that river advocates believe is needed to restore the natural flow of water.

If committees that Negron is affiliated with are getting six-figure donations from Big Sugar, how do we know he’s acting in the interests of the St. Lucie River, not the sugar companies?

We don’t.

That’s the problem with Florida’s campaign finance laws. They cast shadows over everyone who embraces them.

I’m not picking on Negron. He just happens to be the only state lawmaker from Martin County who is affiliated with such committees.

He’s also vying to become state Senate president in 2016, and shuffling money to his allies will boost his chances of landing the chamber’s top post. (Negron could not be reached for comment on Monday.)

None of the politicians interviewed for Sunday’s stories said they were fond of Florida’s campaign finance arrangements. Yet a majority of state lawmakers have failed to embrace meaningful reform.

They should — starting with requiring more honest disclosure about where the special-interest money ends up.

I looked up the contributions and expenditures for all four of Negron’s committees of continuous existence (Florida Conservative Majority, Protect Our Liberty, Florida Conservative Action Committee and Alliance for a Strong Economy). Much of their money is sent to other political committees, the Republican Party of Florida or marketing firms — but we don’t know the end result unless we happen to receive one of the political ads in the mail.

Democracy requires transparency, and Florida’s disclosure rules fall short.

The nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics recommends three practices for campaign finance disclosure: clear statutes; comprehensive data collection and effective presentation of the data.

Of course, special interests aren’t asking for those things.

That means the chances are slim that lawmakers will act on them.

Eve Samples is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects her opinion. Contact her at 772-221-4217 or eve.samples@scripps.com.

• At their convention in Tampa, Republicans hypothesized that President Obama couldn’t run on his record. But run on his record is exactly what he set about doing last week in Charlotte. Democrats made health care reform, the bailout of the auto industry gay marriage, gays serving in the military, student financial aid, the economy, the death of Osama bil Laden and the end of the war in Iraq the centerpieces of their convention. Of course they spun them all, some to the point of making observers dizzy, but they didn’t hide from the Obama record.
• In a speech peppered with good lines, Bill Clinton delivered one of his better ones when he explained his success at producing a balanced budget. “I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic,” he said. He failed to mention that during the first two years of his presidency his focus was on issues like national health care reform and gays in the military. The national debt grew.
• It was after his party took a beating in the 1994 elections that he began to embrace the concepts of a balanced budget and welfare reform, leading to smaller deficits and eventually a surplus. Part of Clinton’s success can be traced to his ability to gauge the sentiment of voters and shift course accordingly. Perhaps the one-word answer to the balanced budget question ought to be “Newt.”
• Clinton also said that Republican administrations had quadrupled the national debt before he took office and that Republican George W. Bush doubled it after Clinton left office. As incredible as those numbers sound, they’re accurate. The national debt went from roughly $1 trillion when Ronald Reagan took office in 1980 to about $4.5 trillion when Clinton came in in 1992. When Clinton left office the number was $5.6 trillion and it shot to $10.7 trillion during the eight years of the Bush administration.
• Left unsaid is that while it took 16 years for the deficit to grow $6 trillion, from $4 trillion to $10 trillion, it has taken less than four years under Obama for it to grow $6 trillion, from $10 trillion to the present $16 trillion. Clinton made a far better case for himself than he did for the man he was nominating.
• You can add to the list African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American and so forth the newly minted LGBT-American, the shorthand for a gay person used by the Democrats.
• For the longest time, Democrats bristled when the health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, was referred to as Obamacare. At their convention, they formally embraced the term, usually adding words to the effect, “Because Obama cares.”
• Republicans had a field day with the president’s “You’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” quote. They played it over and over, never including the preceding line which made it clear the president was talking about infrastructure, not the business itself. If they had, they could have argued that businesses do contribute heavily to building and maintaining infrastructure and that the existence of roads, bridges etc. doesn’t equate to success. But that point takes longer to make and lacks the emotional impact, so …
• Did anyone else notice that at the end of his otherwise stirring speech, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida flubbed a key line? He was supposed to say, “We chose more freedom instead of more government,” but he transposed “freedom” and “government.” Oops.
• As near as I could observe, two speakers at the Republican National Convention declined to use the teleprompter. One, Condoleezza Rice, gave perhaps the best speech of the convention. The other, Clint Eastwood, gave decidedly the worst.
• No less astute an observer than Naples’ Chuck Mohlke, a member of the Democratic National Committee, remarked on the eve of the Republican National Convention that the name Isaac means laughter in Hebrew. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac caused the Republicans to cancel the first day of their convention and remnants of the storm contributed to the unsettled weather that prompted Democrats to move President Obama’s acceptance speech indoors on the last day of theirs. It seems Isaac had a laugh at the expense of both parties.

–Brent Batten, Naples Daily News

Welcome to St. Petersburg and more of Mitt v2.

First of all, a little background: my name is Donovan Myrie and I’m the Executive Producer for Political Coverage for WFTS-TV the Scripps ABC affiliate in Tampa. I’ve been on the job for just six weeks; I was hired exclusively to oversee the upcoming Republican National Convention for ABC Action News and help the other Scripps properties around the state with political stories. My background: college professor as of late (University ofTampa and theUniversity of South Florida), TV journalist by trade (my first time with ABC stations as I’m an NBC alum), and future Dr. (no, not the medical kind, the tweed jacket and publish-or-perish kind). Jack of all trades, master of none, and so far having a great time working towards covering the convention. And by the way- this is my first blog posting.

I’ll be contributing to FLDemocracy2012.com on a sometimes frequent, but probably more infrequent basis. I’m no political scientist (the PhD is in Humanities with a concentration on digital media); what you’ll get from me are journalistic observations with a smattering of humor and the occasional “Why hasn’t anyone thought of…” moments. By the way, I think my jokes are funny, but my wife doesn’t. I’ve been warned that most of my audience will probably side with the wife.

OK-back to the Mitt. First of all, does anyone know what “Mitt” is short for? Mitchell? Milton? Mittens? Well- Mitt is actually a nickname: according to a Vanity Fair/60 Minutes survey back in January, 18% of the respondents thought the name was short for Mitchell and 8% thought it was an abbreviation of Milton. And don’t think I made up “Mittens” to be funny: 2% thought that was his real first name.

Now that Governor Romney is the “presumptive” Republican Candidate for the presidential election, political pundits will continue to notice the GOP machine’s recurrent re-shaping as they want the public to get to know their man while sending out their message. Governor Romney’s visit to St. Pete is a lesson for how both parties like for things to go; a friendly crowd, very few protestors, and a local mayor who embraces a national politician.

 In their effort to limit surprises, staffers asked media outlets (at least mine and I can guess almost everyone else in town) for a general idea of what topics might be covered in one-on-one interviews. This is not that unusual for either party; journalists will sometimes comply with broad outlines because the more prepared a candidate is, sometimes (not always) the better the interview (and a new nugget or two of information just may be revealed). There’s also nothing wrong with a candidate stating to a journalist “I’ll have to get back to you on that” – those statements however don’t make for good TV. (And public relations folks will nod in agreement that a client should never, EVER say “I don’t know”). In a step that however went too far in controlling the message, staffers tried to block reporters from standing in what is known as the “rope-line” (the candidate shakes hands and chats with supporters after an event) to prevent the stray soundbite from turning into the viral video of the week. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul told the paper “This was an error on the part of the campaign staff and volunteers.” Look for reporters to return to the rope line in upcoming events.

Governor Romney’s handlers had good reason to err on the side of caution; the candidate’s reputation was already scuffed after mini-media-calamities in Denver (medical marijuana) and Columbus (health care contraceptive coverage). Additionally, a bit of a Romney flip-flop (clarification?) on gay adoption during interviews with WBTV in Charlotte and FOX News didn’t win him many points either.

 But Wednesday’s visit to St. Petersburgwas a bit of a reboot and an effort to keep it personal. Keep it small. Keep ‘em laughing. Hit some key points reporters will use for fodder for follow up questions. Provide a memorable visual (we haven’t seen the debt clock since the New Hampshireprimary). Brief the candidate. Send him out there. Hope for the best. This wasn’t Ann Romney’s wild and crazy man coming out in St. Petersburg, but he was far from stiff and focused on relating to the audience. 

 Mitt Romney did a pretty good job.

WFTS had two reporters at the rally (Ashley Glass and Carson Chambers). Ashley handled the morning and noon newscasts;Carsonscored the one-on-one and the late afternoon coverage. Originally allotted three minutes, her interview actually stretched to about five in which she was able to ask about the upcoming convention, Marco Rubio/veepstakes, Hispanic voters, women voters, and the governor’s views on gas prices/energy policy.

Carson had no shortage of questions, but by limiting her time, the Romney Campaign bet she (as well as most reporters) would stick to issues important to our audience instead of an out-of-the-blue question that could end up being nothing more than a stray soundbite that didn’t fit into our coverage. Let me let you in on a little media secret: by separating all the reporters for the one-on-ones (the governor bounced back and forth between rooms), the Campaign increased the chances of the same questions being asked again and again while limiting the chances of a nuclear question that would lead to a Mitt Meltdown.   

Well played staffers. Well played.

So what did I get from all of this on Wednesday? Detractors label Governor Romney as a venture capitalist and corporate raider highlighting his unpopular business decisions. Mitt v2 is a step in a different direction; he’s still rich and still successful, but the persona is more of a friendly neighbor rather than a reclusive and privileged stranger. The team is doing their best to make the bossman look good.

I think we’ll be seeing more of these smaller venue appearances as candidate Romney gains his footing transitioning from political party battles to the war for the White House. Hopefully in the next survey more people will recognize Romney’s real first name; it’s Willard by the way.

The ol’ paratrooper got our liberal friends in a bit of a huff recently when, while speaking at a town hall in Jensen Beach, he said “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party … it’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Other than finding out that the local Whole Foods is out of quinoa, nothing gets a liberal more hysterical than being called a Communist.

Just how pink is most of the left wing of the modern Democrat Party? To steal a line from Richard Nixon, pretty much down to their underwear. After all, as the well-known aphorism goes, communists are simply just “liberals in a hurry.”

Consider a few of the Ten Pillars of Communism from Karl Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party: “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax … 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance … 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State … 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State … 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State.”

That’s pretty much the legislative program the Democrats have tried to pass since they took over Congress in 2007, not to mention putting the state in control of health care. And rest assured that if Marx had written his Manifesto in 1948 instead of 1848 that nationalized health care would have been included in his list.

Also of particular note is the Obama campaign trotting out “Forward” as its new slogan. As the Washington Times notes, the word has a “long and rich association with European Marxism … Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name ‘Forward!’ or its foreign cognates … The slogan ‘Forward!’ reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.”

Indeed, Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky used to write for Vorwärts, the official daily of Germany’s Social Democratic Party. “Vorwärts” is German for “forward.” Even East Germany named the official soccer club of the National People’s Army “ASK Vorwärts Berlin.” Vladimir Lenin also got in on the game, founding a publication called Vpered. Roughly translated, “vpered” means “New York Times.”

And would it surprise you that the grass-roots movement of the Democrat Party, those infantile mouth breathers known as Occupy Wall Street, planned a day of public protest on May Day, the high holy day of Soviet Communism? Where the Russkies were content to do laps around Red Square, parading their armored columns and missiles in front of the general secretary, the Garbage Pail Kids intended to make your life miserable through a “general strike,” pretty laughable since most of that motley crew is unemployable.

At its core, what Col. Allen West said at that town hall meeting was true: Many of his House and Senate Democrat colleagues are sympathetic to the substance of Marxism. Read the Manifesto, then check the voting records and statements of the members of the CPC. You won’t find a lot of daylight between them. There is certainly more in common between the CPC and Marx, Trotsky and Lenin than there is between the CPC and James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

West should be applauded twice: Once for bringing this discussion to the national stage, and again for not backing down despite the hysterical animadversions of those on the Left. Unlike most politicians who speak in euphemisms, West isn’t afraid to call things as he sees them, nor is he averse to dropping the gloves when need be.

This is exactly what I’m looking for in a congressional representative, and I’m proud that Allen West is going to represent our district.

Tim Benson, Jensen Beach, is a member of the Martin County Republican Executive Committee. Email: Bence851@gmail.com

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/may/14/timothy-benson-democrats-in-congress-have-much/

Now that the non-stop political ad air war is over–for the moment-I caught up with Brian Crowley. He’s a veteran of the political scene in Florida, a savvy, former newspaperman who now oversees his own political blog. The reporting tools have changed but the Sunshine State’s importance in the race for the White House has not.

Crowley said, “Florida’s primary clarified the race. It offered a snapshot to the nation of what a national race could look like with (Mitt) Romney on the ticket. Romney did well with every group of Republicans he needed to do well with.”

The former Massachusetts governor may be riding high after his big week in Florida, but if Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination he will face a far sterner test in the fall.  President Obama’s Democratic Party forces will match him in money, organization and manpower in this all important swing state.

Crowley offered this cautionary note for Romney supporters who might read too much into his victory here.   He said, “That does not necessarily translate into him (Romney) winning here in November. He showed weakness with hard core conservatives. And there are certain issues like the  DREAM Act, other social issues he must work on to win over moderate Republicans and independents. ”

In short, a warm winter welcome for Romney in Florida offers no guarantee about the political climate if he is the  Republican nominee this fall.

In the early 1900s, the Progressive Era ushered in an array of political reforms. One of them was the establishment of a presidential primary, which allowed the public to vote for candidates. Anyone familiar with Florida politics may be surprised to know that it was Florida in 1901 who first promoted a primary system. Two years later, Wisconsin used a primary to elect state officials and, over the next few years, Oregon and Florida held presidential primaries.

 In the years after World War II, the remaining states joined these early reformers. Eventually, every state adopted a primary election – either a “preference primary” with confidential, binding ballots or “delegate selection primary” (caucus), whereby voters informally pick delegates who then vote for them at conventions.

 Each state determines the rules for its primary and there are four basic types: “closed primaries” permit only those individuals registered in a party to participate in that party’s voting (Florida’s system); “semi-open primaries” allow both party members and independents to vote; and “open primaries” allow all voters to participate in the primary. “Non-partisan primaries” elect offices such as school board or judge.

 The Democratic and Republican National Committees set the primary calendar, which typically runs from early February until early June. Ever since 1972, Iowa and New Hampshire have insisted on being the first caucus and first primary, respectively, in the primary calendar, even passing state laws demanding as much. Even though the national committees and other states don’t have to adhere to these laws, they have been reluctant to challenge them.

 But, because the nominations are often decided by March, state legislatures began voting to move their primaries closer toward the beginning of the primary calendar. Such defiance of party rules (known as “front-loading”) is the result of states wanting their residents to be able to help pick the party nominees and reap the economic benefits that come from being an early state. Also, legislators want to be in a position to cut deals with presidential candidates in exchange for endorsements and help campaigning.

 Then, in 2008, southern states complained about not having southern representation in the early races. So South Carolina was allowed to have an early primary. Western states followed suit and were appeased when Nevada was permitted to move its caucus to join Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the pack.

 But the national parties had to then draw the line or risk all the states crowding into February. During the debate, Iowa and New Hampshire, concerned about protecting their early status, even threatened to move to December!

A compromise resulted. But then Florida’s Democrats demanded to move ahead of the start date for the primary calendar. They were threatened with penalties, including a disqualification of their 2008 primary vote. Nonetheless, Florida played chicken and lost, and was hit with several sanctions.

As the joke goes, its déjà vu again! Florida – this time the Republicans – refused to follow national rules, demanding to move the primary up to January 31. At the same time, Florida Republicans defied the national rule that any primary prior to April 1 award their delegates proportionally. Instead, Florida demanded to award delegates in a “winner-take-all” format.

And, once again, among other penalties, Florida will lose half its delegates (50 instead of 99) and even though the state (Tampa) will host the 2012 Republican National Convention, Florida’s delegation will not get the usual preferred seating or an advantageous role in drafting the party’s platform.

 Unfortunately, Florida has gone from being the national leader for progressive, democratic primary reform to being Flori-duh, a state where reforms have been undone and a state whose leaders threaten to take their ball and bat and go home if they don’t get to pitch.

Robert Watson, Ph.D. is Professor and Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University with 34 books on politics and history in print

Newt Gingrich was in Miami on Friday, at what one person told me was the presidential-hopeful-equivalent of a catholic visiting the Vatican: the Versailles Cafe in Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood.

The two rallies were filled with all the trappings of a presidential campaign: eager supporters, lots of handshakes, smiling candidates, stump speeches, and about a billion reporters.

But the two events were very different. Let me try to give you a sense of what they were like from someone who saw both in-person.

Let’s start with Romney.

First of all, he showed up on time. For political reporters, that was news in-and-of-itself. These guys and gals are NEVER on time. It cuts across party affiliation. While I was a reporter in Upstate New York, I once waited for President Obama for two hours. And the rule is always the tighter the deadline, the longer they make you wait. Of course, yesterday, with a rally scheduled for one-in-the-afternoon, I wouldn’t have cared if he was a whole hour late (the news goes on at 5 o’clock). So naturally, he showed up early the one time it didn’t matter.

But his event was more “presidential” then I expected. There were clear cut areas for everyone to be. He spoke on a stage surrounded by standing supporters to give the whole event an intimate look.

Reporters were not given a shot to ask questions along a rope line, during an interview setting or as he was walking from the building into his car.

The former governor gave a standard stump speech, ignoring the news of the day, the other candidates and didn’t take any questions from his audience. The whole thing looked like a town hall, but wasn’t.

When I did get near Romney while he was shaking hands after his talk, I stuck my mic in and shouted several questions above the roar. But being the polished presidential candidate he is (ie NOT Herman Cain), he was very good at ignoring me and the other reporters dying to get him to say something that wasn’t in the script.

I even tried to find where his car was parked outside the convention center, but was told by a building security guard that I was not welcome down that particular alley.

“Is that where his car is?”
“Maybe. Maybe not.”

Point taken.

After about fifteen minutes of handshaking and autograph signings, he disappeared behind the curtains, and that was the last I saw of Mitt Romney on Thursday.

Now, let’s talk about Newt’s visit.

As soon as I saw the layout of The Versailles Cafe, I knew this one would be different.

There was an absolute HORDE of reporters – local, national, print, broadcast, English and Spanish-language – set up around the front serving window of the restaurant. The space was already cramped, and more were arriving.

By about nine (a half-hour late), Newt arrived. Except I couldn’t see him, because a horde of reporters I didn’t even notice before, lurched towards him and shouted as many questions as they could at him. He answered them all.

He drank his little cups of “cafecito (Cuban espresso), and chatted with reporters all the while. I couldn’t hear what he was saying, but had my mic shoved around about ten people in hopes I would pick up some sound. My photographer for the day – the expert veteran Gary Russ – was holding his giant news camera high above his head, like a periscope, to see above the reporters.

Newt was eventually dragged inside the building by his handlers. But he couldn’t resist answering more questions along the way.

“That’s how he is,” his daughter told me later. “He loves to talk.”

In a room that was absolutely JAMMED in the restaurant, Newt addressed a crowd of Cuban-American voters, talking in great detail about how his plans on the economy, on immigration reform, and addressing some of the news of the day. It was a real conversation with supporters and reporters. He managed the flow quite well, even repeating some questions that couldn’t be heard.

He and I had a brief back-and-forth about how his organization is coming together in Florida.

“We will surge very rapidly in Florida, we have a statewide organization already being developed,” he told me. “We are very confident we’re going to be able to more than match the governor in volunteers, and I think in enthusiasm there will be no comparison.”

After that part was over, it was back outside where he did a live interview with what I think was a Miami Fox affiliate, answered a few more questions to a crush of reporters, and was finally whisked back into his black Chevvy Suburban.

One national reporter told me that if Romney becomes the nominee, he expected a much-more tightly controlled operation than Gingrich, where access to the candidate would be limited. He expected that Gingrich’s style would make it much easier to develop a back-and-forth with reporters.

Does that matter to anyone other than reporters? Not sure.

Two different candidates, two styles on display.
 
Does it matter? Not sure of that either!!