Via Legal Insurrection comes this interesting story about DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her rather embarrassing Jewish liaison Dani Gilbert.  As you may remember, Ms. Gilbert had some unfortunate comments surface from her Facebook page – essentially, stuff from 2006 where she used admittedly self-derogatory religious/cultural epithets.  At the time, I wondered when exactly DWS had hired the young woman – just on the off chance that the DNC chair had knowingly hired an underaged drinker, which the DNC chair is certainly dumb enough to do.  It turns out that this was a new hire (for the DNC position, at least)… but, hey, that’s where this gets interesting!

Turns out that the DNC already had a Jewish liaison – Ira Forman.  Mr. Forman brings to the table a large amount of experience, as one would expect from a former executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.  But he’s just one person – and not the daughter of two Florida Democratic bundlers who put together 500K for the Obama campaign, which is apparently Ms. Gilbert’s primary qualification for the job.  Shockingly, it’s being reported that the Obama administration recognized that Ms. Gilbert may not have been the most suitable candidate for this position; even more shockingly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz defied them… actually, not shockingly.  The Gilberts are also very heavy donor’s to Wasserman Schultz’s own campaign coffers, and since it’s clear by now that Barack Obama plans to get himself elected first and worry about everybody else in the Democratic party when he feels like it, the DNC chair may be feeling the need for a little insurance.
And that’s where we’re at.  As LI’s William Jacobson put it, “The DNC Chair appears to have used DNC resources to reward two big donors with a job for their daughter.”  And… it’s a little depressing to contemplate how unsurprising that is, is it?  It also handily explains why the original comments didn’t prevent Ms. Gilbert from getting the job in the first place, too: they might have been too much if Gilbert hadn’t been Jewish herself, but as such said comments didn’t exactly stop the campaign cash from coming in, did they? – And that’s what it’s clearly all about for the Democratic party these days: keeping the campaign cash flowing.

Well, it’s not as if they have any ideals, principles, or coherent programs to run on at this point.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: It’s not that it’s illegal; it’s not illegal.  It’s not even that it’s legal, really.  It’s that the people – who carefully made sure that it was legal – then presume to lecture the rest of us on ethics.

Last weekend, a Senate Forum was held in Orlando at the tail end of a statewide tea party gathering, followed by a straw poll. Of those who attended the forum and chose to participate in the straw poll, just under half of the overall attendees, George LeMieux was the heavy favorite.

Now there have been those who’ve disputed the validity of that straw poll, primarily supporters of Rep. Connie Mack, however, what cannot be disputed is that LeMieux did a better job connecting with the room that night than the other two candidates present, Mack and Col. Mike McCalister.

As one attendee attested; “I did not vote for LeMieux in this straw poll, but I would have to say that he definitely had the best performance of the three candidates.”

So how is that possible?

With the constant reminder of George Lemieux’s connections with former Gov. Charlie Crist, an unforgivable act in the eyes of some, how is it that his message resonates with tea party activists? It’s not as if those present last weekend overlooked this little nugget, LeMieux barely had both feet on stage before he was ambushed with the question and Mack was also quick to bring it up.

And with Col. McCalister having spent months on end touting himself as the ‘tea party candidate’, how is it that LeMieux comes into what should be McCalister’s home turf and carries the day?

Perception often trumps reality and nowhere is this more true than in politics. Millions are spent carefully crafting a candidate’s image or shaping his opponent in the eyes of the public. Our senses are assaulted with cleverly designed ads, often with so much spin we’re left not knowing which end is up. On the campaign trail every candidate promises milk and honey, while every opponent is the spawn of Satan himself.

Often times, when we look at the actions and words of a politician when he is not campaigning, we get a little more accurate picture of his true self. So in an effort to solve this great mystery of how George LeMieux is appealing to the grassroots, we’re going to climb aboard the way-back machine and take a look at the man before he started campaigning.

LeMieux was appointed to replace retiring Senator Mel Martinez back in August, 2009, the first time he has held public office, and formally announced his intentions to run for Sen. Bill Nelson’ s seat on April 5, 2011.

In February, 2010 LeMieux joined with Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) and others to introduce legislation to impose a moratorium on earmarks and also a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. He said at the time;

“Washington is addicted to spending and earmarks are the gateway drug to enormous debt. We need to stop earmarks and require a balanced budget. The American people don’t trust Washington to do the right thing with their money – and for good reason. The longer we do nothing about our debt, the longer struggle toward prosperity our children and future generations face.”

In May, 2010, LeMieux was a guest blogger for The Heritage Foundation and the topic was the president’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court. He opined;

“Congress’ tendency to expand government power is as real today as it was in [Alexander] Hamilton’s time. Healthcare mandates, exponential increases in the federal debt, and the recent spate of government bailouts all reflect that, left unchecked, government will expand into every nook and cranny of our commerce and our lives.”

In June, 2010, during a a meeting with the St. Petersburg Times editorial board, LeMiuex said;

“Fiscal responsibility is nothing but background music in Washington.”

In August, 2010, LeMieux hosted the “Fiscal Solutions Forum” in Orlando and Tampa, along with former U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker and Concord Coalition Ex. Dir. Robert L. Bixby, two national budget experts. The forum focused on the national debt and the net interest paid on that debt. His comments then;

“We’re going to have to look across the board. My view is that we don’t have a revenue problem in Washington. We’ve got a spending problem. We’re going to have to look at our spending programs. We’re going to have to prioritize. No one even looks to see whether or not we’re spending our money efficiently and effectively. It’s going to take some principal people to go up there and try to do the right thing.”

And;

“Washington spending is out of control and the size of our debt proves it. From the time I came to Congress until now, the public debt has increased by one and a half trillion dollars. We have a responsibility to the American people to rein in spending and ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, not wastefully. Now is the time to make the difficult decisions, not somewhere down the road after we’ve passed along the burden to our children.”

So when George LeMieux stood before tea party activists and identified the national debt as our “number one threat”, stated that “career politicians, both parties, are as great a threat” and spoke of the future of our children as being the motivation behind his run, it’s very likely he wasn’t just pandering to his audience, but was speaking to his convictions.

He was also speaking the tea party’s language. He did not bluster and he did not tell the audience one thing, then spend the following days walking it back in the media. He was speaking to what he has been saying all along, to what most in that room have dedicated three years of their lives to; fiscal responsibility, limited government and free market solutions.

Which may be what prompts responses such as this from a reader;

“I watched George LeMieux’s voting record after he took over as interim senator. To my surprise, he voted along Small-Government, Tea Party lines repeatedly. I had expected to find another Charlie Crist pattern since Crist had appointed him. Yet, LeMieux voted as an actual Reagan-style conservative would have voted… at this point, I’d choose George LeMieux. And am personally quite surprised to find myself in this position.”

LeMieux closed out his comments last week by saying, “I’m not a show horse, I’m a work horse.” It would be hard to disagree that we have plenty of show horses already in Washington, D.C.

Cross-Posted at Florida Political Press

That’s the most likely conclusion that one can draw, amazingly enough. Alan Grayson is typically precisely the sort of would-be domestic Taliban who might advocate the death of political… well, not ‘opponents.’ Rick Santorum is currently about three levels’ worth of influence above Grayson, and it’s Grayson’s fondest wish to shrink that disparity to two. So it’s very likely that the former Congressman from Florida is pretty much trying to ill-wish the Presidential candidate from Pennsylvania to death.

But there’s still the possibility that Grayson is merely abjectly stupid, so let’s pretend that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and analyze one of the latest whines of his in the most charitable of lights.

To back up for a moment: essentially, Grayson put out an email where he pretended to be all libertarian, and so forth. Yes, I know, absolutely absurd, but some liberals like to pretend that they’re actually libertarian, mostly because they think that it sounds cool. Anyway, in the middle of listing all the things that Santorum doesn’t have to do if he doesn’t want to do them, Alan Grayson – more accurately, the staffer who actually wrote this thing – demonstrated yet again that He* Just Doesn’t Get It with regards to libertarianism, elementary logic, or in fact sidereal reality. Because this was included in the list:

If you’re against universal health care, just keep your distance from doctors and hospitals.

Now, Alan – can I call you Alan? After all, it’s not like I have to call you ‘Congressman,’ or anything – I know that the strange world of the Triple-Digit IQ People is kind of confusing to you, but here’s something that you have to understand, anyway. You see, everything else that was on the list that your campaign staff put together and published under your name is, indeed, something that one could avoid, if one wanted to. But if people could opt out of Obamacare without penalty if they wanted to then it wouldn’t be universal health care. For that matter: you’re assuming that Rick Santorum has complete control over whether or not he has to seek medical treatment, which is of course not true. After all, accidents happen.

I mean, what is he supposed to do if one day, while Rick Santorum is minding his own business, some gibbering lunatic who dresses like a former KGB agent andcurrent pimp comes along and t-bones Rick’s bus? It hardly seems fair to expect Santorum to anticipate every loose cannon with entitlement issues that comes barreling down the highway…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Ace notes that there’s at least one normal person running against Grayson: Mark Oxner.

*The guy who wrote the campaign email was almost certainly male: Grayson has… issues… with women in positions of authority.

That’s the most likely conclusion that one can draw, amazingly enough. Alan Grayson is typically precisely the sort of would-be domestic Taliban who might advocate the death of political… well, not ‘opponents.’ Rick Santorum is currently about three levels’ worth of influence above Grayson, and it’s Grayson’s fondest wish to shrink that disparity to two. So it’s very likely that the former Congressman from Florida is pretty much trying to ill-wish the Presidential candidate from Pennsylvania to death.

But there’s still the possibility that Grayson is merely abjectly stupid, so let’s pretend that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and analyze one of the latest whines of his in the most charitable of lights.

To back up for a moment: essentially, Grayson put out an email where he pretended to be all libertarian, and so forth. Yes, I know, absolutely absurd, but some liberals like to pretend that they’re actually libertarian, mostly because they think that it sounds cool. Anyway, in the middle of listing all the things that Santorum doesn’t have to do if he doesn’t want to do them, Alan Grayson – more accurately, the staffer who actually wrote this thing – demonstrated yet again that He* Just Doesn’t Get It with regards to libertarianism, elementary logic, or in fact sidereal reality. Because this was included in the list:

If you’re against universal health care, just keep your distance from doctors and hospitals.

Now, Alan – can I call you Alan? After all, it’s not like I have to call you ‘Congressman,’ or anything – I know that the strange world of the Triple-Digit IQ People is kind of confusing to you, but here’s something that you have to understand, anyway. You see, everything else that was on the list that your campaign staff put together and published under your name is, indeed, something that one could avoid, if one wanted to. But if people could opt out of Obamacare without penalty if they wanted to then it wouldn’t be universal health care. For that matter: you’re assuming that Rick Santorum has complete control over whether or not he has to seek medical treatment, which is of course not true. After all, accidents happen.

I mean, what is he supposed to do if one day, while Rick Santorum is minding his own business, some gibbering lunatic who dresses like a former KGB agent andcurrent pimp comes along and t-bones Rick’s bus? It hardly seems fair to expect Santorum to anticipate every loose cannon with entitlement issues that comes barreling down the highway…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Ace notes that there’s at least one normal person running against Grayson: Mark Oxner.

*The guy who wrote the campaign email was almost certainly male: Grayson has… issues… with women in positions of authority.

This particular hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic party is almost… pure in its brazenness, really. It goes like so: the Democrats have put together a program called ‘Majority Makers’ where Democrats with good fundraising ability who are expected to win their elections are being tapped to spread some of that raised money around to candidates who aren’t doing so well. This in itself is hardly unusual, and not actually pernicious. No sense wasting money, right? – and it’s also expected that the money being passed along would be going to a candidate that shared the original candidate’s values.

The problem is that one of the keystones of the ‘Majority Makers’ program is Alan Grayson, running in FL-09; and his value system includes crude sexual-themed attacks against women who dare to have a different opinion than him on economics.

“…this lobbyist, this K Street Whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

Note that Grayson lost his race 56/38, which does seem to call into question why the Democratic party seems to think that Grayson is a shoo-in for 2012*… but let’s skip that for right now. The question is not why Alan Grayson is being supported by the DCCC. That’s easy. The DCCC has to work with what it can get right now, and Grayson is able to fundraise. The question is also not why Alan Grayson is able to fundraise. That’s also easy: progressives love to give money to somebody who’s willing to scream all of the dirtybadthoughts that whisper into their brains at 2 AM. No, the question is: what fool at the DCCC thought that it was a good idea to publicize the fact that a vicious misogynist like Grayson was going to be handing out money from his fellow women-haters? While at the same time that it’s trying to make itself look like the zero-tolerance-for-misogyny party?

Whoever that fool is… promote him or her. Probably him: I imagine that the glass ceiling at the DCCC’s non-boutique levels is a wonder to behold.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: I can’t help but notice that the two beneficiaries to Grayson’s largesse listed by Politico – Ilya Sherman of IL-10 and Dennis Kuchinich of Ohio – are both men. I also can’t help but wonder why Grayson (if possibly not the DCCC) would prefer seeing a man in OH-09, instead of Nancy Kaptur. Actually: no, wait, I don’t wonder at all.

*Honestly, watch this ad against him from the last cycle:

All the NRCC needs to do is replace the bit at the end with the name and information for the eventual candidate for FL-09. Which won’t be Daniel Webster, as he is running for re-election in the redrawn FL-10… and Grayson declined to follow suit. Note: at no time did I use the words “whimpering,” “whipped dog,” and/or “hiding in a corner” to describe former Congressman Grayson, or his habits.

This particular hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic party is almost… pure in its brazenness, really. It goes like so: the Democrats have put together a program called ‘Majority Makers’ where Democrats with good fundraising ability who are expected to win their elections are being tapped to spread some of that raised money around to candidates who aren’t doing so well. This in itself is hardly unusual, and not actually pernicious. No sense wasting money, right? – and it’s also expected that the money being passed along would be going to a candidate that shared the original candidate’s values.

The problem is that one of the keystones of the ‘Majority Makers’ program is Alan Grayson, running in FL-09; and his value system includes crude sexual-themed attacks against women who dare to have a different opinion than him on economics.

“…this lobbyist, this K Street Whore, is trying to teach me about economics.”

Note that Grayson lost his race 56/38, which does seem to call into question why the Democratic party seems to think that Grayson is a shoo-in for 2012*… but let’s skip that for right now. The question is not why Alan Grayson is being supported by the DCCC. That’s easy. The DCCC has to work with what it can get right now, and Grayson is able to fundraise. The question is also not why Alan Grayson is able to fundraise. That’s also easy: progressives love to give money to somebody who’s willing to scream all of the dirtybadthoughts that whisper into their brains at 2 AM. No, the question is: what fool at the DCCC thought that it was a good idea to publicize the fact that a vicious misogynist like Grayson was going to be handing out money from his fellow women-haters? While at the same time that it’s trying to make itself look like the zero-tolerance-for-misogyny party?

Whoever that fool is… promote him or her. Probably him: I imagine that the glass ceiling at the DCCC’s non-boutique levels is a wonder to behold.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: I can’t help but notice that the two beneficiaries to Grayson’s largesse listed by Politico – Ilya Sherman of IL-10 and Dennis Kuchinich of Ohio – are both men. I also can’t help but wonder why Grayson (if possibly not the DCCC) would prefer seeing a man in OH-09, instead of Nancy Kaptur. Actually: no, wait, I don’t wonder at all.

*Honestly, watch this ad against him from the last cycle:

All the NRCC needs to do is replace the bit at the end with the name and information for the eventual candidate for FL-09. Which won’t be Daniel Webster, as he is running for re-election in the redrawn FL-10… and Grayson declined to follow suit. Note: at no time did I use the words “whimpering,” “whipped dog,” and/or “hiding in a corner” to describe former Congressman Grayson, or his habits.

A lot has been written in the conservative blogosphere about redistricting in Florida, most of it conspiratorial regarding the 22nd District represented by Alan West. To summarize, many believe that the House redistricting chair Will Weatherford is deliberately screwing West because he is a Romney supporter. In actuality, Weatherford originally endorsed Pawlenty and switched to Romney when Pawlenty dropped out. Additionally, Florida picks up two seats this year due to population growth. As a result, all of the state’s congressional districts get smaller. Furthermore, simple demographics in West’s area- southeast Florida- dictate the district political configurations more than any grand conspiracy or GOP ineptitude in the Florida legislature. The deck is stacked against the GOP in this area as it is highly Democratic, comprised mainly of that party or Republicans who are certainly more moderate than Alan West. This is the area of retired northeasterners who tend to be more liberal or, if Republican, more moderate in their political outlook. I see no conspiracy or ineptitude, but demographic reality in this process. Regardless, there seems to be way too much emphasis among conservative voices about the alleged wrongs against West. Realizing that he is a rarity- a black conservative voice in the GOP- the tendency to protect him are understandable. Still, when one looks at these new districts, it is obvious that the Republicans have more to worry about this year in Florida.

A lot of confusion enters the discussion since a lot of these current districts are renumbered in the process. Perhaps the best analysis is to go district by district and look at each in turn. The 1st is basically unchanged, heavily Republican and Jeff Miller will win. The 2nd is also largely unchanged, Republican and Southerland will win. The new 3rd is the old 6th and Cliff Stearns should win here and likewise in the Republican 4th which remains unchanged as Alan Crenshaw should win. The new 5th is the old 3rd and Corrine Brown is the Democratic representative. However, it does take in some additional Republican territory and a strong GOP candidate may give her a challenge.

The new 6th is the old 7th and currently vacant, although it is nominally Republican. Once candidates emerge, expect a GOP victory. The new 7th retains more than half its old territory, but adds more than half of the old 24th. Hence, it sets up a GOP primary between incumbents John Mica and Sandy Adams with the winner likely going back to Congress and the loser going home. The new 8th is mainly the old 5th and strongly Republican. Expect Bob Posey to win here. Meanwhile, the new 9th takes in large parts of the old 8th and 15th and takes on a Democratic character. Expect the Democrats to pick up this seat as former congressman Alan Grayson will likely return. The 10th is the old 8th and another term for Republican Daniel Webster.

The new 11th is significant parts of the old 5th and 6th, both represented by Republicans. Hence, it will remain Republican. The 12th takes in parts of the old 5th and 9th, again both represented by Republicans. However, it takes in enough swing territory of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. However, with Bilirakis running here and the district’s familiarity with him, I expect a GOP victory. The 13th is the old 10th and is a pure swing district, but should also stay in the Republican column. The 14th is the old 11th and nominally Democratic as incumbent Mary Castor will likey win for that party. And the new 15th is basically the old 12th and 9th and should be a GOP victory.

The 16th is the old 13th held by Vern Buchanan and although slightly more Democratic, should be won by Buchanan. The 17th takes in large parts of the old old 12th and 16th which had the potential to set up a Ross-Rooney primary match up. However, Ross opted for the 15th leaving Rooney the likely winner in 2012. The new 18th takes in parts of the old 16th and 22nd- again, both held by Republicans, one of them being Alan West who will run in this district instead of the 22nd. Although the GOP can count on Martin County, West will have to make serious inroads in St. Lucie County, but cannot count on the parts of Palm Beach County that remain in the new district. Thus far, the Democrats have no candidate, but one can suspect that West’s days in Congress are numbered. The new 19th is the old 14th and should be won by a Republican again (formerly held by Connie Mack who is running for Senate). The 20th is the old 23rd and should be retained by Hastings, a Democrat.

The old 19th is now numbered the 21st and Ted Deutch will win again. The new 22nd certainly retains a large portion of its former territory, but loses enough of the Republican enclaves to send Alan West to the 18th. Expect a Democrat to win here. Meanwhile, the new 23rd is basically the old 20th held by my favorite Democratic moon bat- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is not going anywhere. The 24th is the old 17th and safely Democratic while the 25th is an amalgamation of the old 21st and 25th, Hispanic and GOP-leaning and likely victory.

Half of the old 25th is now part of the 26th, Hispanic and certainly more Democratic-leaning than in the past. Hence, GOP incumbent David Rivera will have a difficult time retaining this seat and one should not be surprised if a Democrat wins, as I predict. Finally, the 27th is parts of the old 18th and 21st, both currently held by Republicans. Although popular Iliana Ros-Lehtinen will run again, should the Democrats field a strong, Hispanic candidate, the newly designed district is even more Democratic than the 26th. However, until a candidate is named, we will leave this district in the GOP column.

The current delegation favors the GOP 19-6. Only Corrine Brown could be considered vulnerable this year. Hence, five of the six Democratic incumbents will definitely win. Of the 19 incumbent Republicans, I am predicting that two will definitely lose- Alan West and either John Mica or Sandy Adams, most likely Adams. That leaves seven Republican incumbents vulnerable this year. That sets up a recipe for disaster. It also underscores the importance of the presidential race as coat tails WILL play a role in this state. Of those seven Republican incumbents, I would count Webster, Bilirakis, Ross and Diaz-Balart as likely winners. That would make the count, asssuming Brown prevails (a big assumption), that would make the count 14-6 for the GOP. Expect Grayson to pick up a seat; hence 14-7 now. In the 13th, I am expecting a Democratic pick up: 14-8. The 22nd will flip: 14-9 I think because of voter familiarity, both Rivera and Diaz-Balart will win: 16-9. A Republican will take the vacant 6th: 17-9. Meanwhile, a Democrat will likely take the other slot: 17-10. This represents a two seat loss for the Republicans plus a 4 seat pick up for the Democrats for a net Democratic gain of 6 House seats out of Florida in 2012.

With Obama’s approval ratings in Florida at 45% (they were at 47% before the latest poll), the GOP’s chances have improved. If Santorum or Gingrich is the Republican nominee, the state belongs to Obama. In short, it would appear that only Romney stands a chance of defeating Obama in Florida (latest poll has him trailing Obama by one point 45-44%). If Obama was two points higher in his state approval rating, I would give him this state with no doubts. However, the fact that he has dropped gives me serious pause. I am going to err, for now, on the side of incumbency having its advantages and give their 29 electoral votes to Obama with a big FOR NOW.

However, I also believe it will be a mixed bag of success here as Connie Mack will defeat Bill Nelson.

Finally tally:
Obama wins the Presidency 290 to 248 electoral votes;
A net gain of 3 Governors;
A net gain of 5 Senate seats as the GOP takes the Senate;
A net loss of 9 House seats as the GOP retains the House.