Happy Easter - Ed
What was Charlie Crist thinking?
Why did a Republican governor just add tens of
thousands of Democrats to the voter rolls in
Florida?
By Farhad Manjoo
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/06/crist/
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist talks to the media, April, 5,
2007, in Miami, about his felon rights plan.
April 6, 2007 | During his campaign for the Florida
governorship last fall, Charlie Crist frequently
expressed deep moral opposition to the state's practice
of permanently prohibiting convicted felons from
exercising their right to vote. But Crist is a
Republican, and his promise to fix Florida's notorious
felon-voting ban sometimes sounded like nothing more
than campaign puffery. Felon disenfranchisement has long
given Republicans a considerable boost at the polls in
Florida; if the state's ex-cons had been allowed to vote
in 2000, George W. Bush would now be the commissioner of
baseball. Was Charlie Crist really going to kill this
political golden goose?
On Thursday, he did just that. Crist, who became
governor after handily defeating Democrat Jim Davis in
November, ushered in a proposal that will quickly
restore the voting rights of most of Florida's felons as
soon as they are released from prison. The plan looks
sure to alter the political landscape in the nation's
most populous -- and electoral-vote-rich -- swing state.
"This is going to have a very big impact," says
Christopher Uggen, a sociologist at the University of
Minnesota who is coauthor, with Jeff Manza, of "Locked
Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy."
Voting-rights activists say that there are about 950,000
felons in Florida who have served their time but are
currently ineligible to vote -- making up roughly 9
percent of the state's voting-age population, and more
disenfranchised felons than in any other state. The ex-
cons belong to traditionally Democratic demographics --
many are African-American, and many are poor. If they're
allowed to vote, they'll likely go to the polls at lower
rates than everyone else; Uggen and Manza's work
suggests felons turn out to vote at about the half the
general turnout rate in any given election. But in a
state as closely divided politically as Florida, that
could still make all the difference. In the past several
decades, say Uggen and Manza, at least two Senate races
in Florida would have gone to Democrats instead of
Republicans had felons had the right to vote. Buddy
McKay would have beaten Connie Mack in 1988, and Betty
Castor would have beaten Mel Martinez in 2004. And, of
course, the 2000 presidential election would have gone
to Al Gore. Uggen and Manza's research suggests Gore
might have picked up 60,000 votes from felons.
By restoring ex-cons' rights, in other words, Florida's
new Republican governor has added tens of thousands of
Democratic voters to the rolls -- possibly pushing a
House seat or two into the blue column, certainly making
life a little bit easier for Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama or whoever else wins next year's Democratic
presidential nomination.
Crist's move is all the more remarkable when you
consider the political backdrop behind the fight for
voting rights in America. In an attempt to prevent what
they call "voter fraud," Republicans have long called
for measures that restrict traditionally Democratic
voters' access to the polls. The Bush administration's
Justice Department has pushed regulations requiring
people to show identification when they vote, and it has
moved to aggressively punish alleged fraud -- an effort
that contributed to the firing of some of the U.S.
attorneys for which the administration now finds itself
under fire.
In Florida, Republican officials have shown particularly
naked disdain for voting rights, using the felon
database as a cudgel with which to disenfranchise large
classes of voters. In 2000, thousands of people who were
qualified to vote were turned away from Florida's polls
because their names were erroneously purged from voter
rolls; they weren't felons, and were possibly model
citizens whose only crime was having a name similar to
that of someone else who'd once committed a felony. In
2004, the same thing nearly happened again. Nevertheless
-- or maybe as a consequence -- Jeb Bush, Crist's
predecessor in the governor's office, remained a strong
believer in restricting felons' rights.
Why would Charlie Crist change the game? The simplest
answer, says Uggen, is "courage and principle." He
points out that activist groups like the American Civil
Liberties Union have led the fight to change state
felon-voting laws across the country. But their efforts
have been stymied, especially in Florida, where the
felon-voting ban is constitutionally sanctioned. Only a
governor could have done away with it, and Uggen notes
that a Republican governor might have had more political
room to maneuver on the issue than a Democrat. Any
Democrat who moves to restore felons' voting rights
"becomes instantly vulnerable to the charge that it's a
naked power grab," he points out. Still, in Maryland,
the Democratic-led Legislature has just passed a bill
loosening restrictions on felons' right to vote;
Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he's leaning
toward signing it.
Crist's personal popularity in Florida has also helped.
Since taking office in January, Crist has had an
extremely good run in the governor's office. He pushed
through a popular measure to lower property insurance
rates, and he's looking to do the same for property
taxes. Crist also banned touch-screen voting in the
state. A recent poll put his approval rating at an
amazing 73 percent; even Democrats in Florida
overwhelmingly approve of his performance. Republican
presidential candidates have been wooing him, calling
him a "new Republican" who's cultivating a broader base.
Restoring felons' voting rights certainly falls in line
with such an effort -- as Uggen notes, it could end up
helping Crist, too. When he runs for reelection, perhaps
tens of thousands of people who would never have
considered voting for a Republican will cast a vote for
the governor who finally gave them their rights back.
The governor and three other state officials --
Republicans Bill McCollum, the attorney general, and
Charles H. Bronson, the agriculture secretary, and
Democrat Alex Sink, the chief financial officer -- make
up the Florida Board of Executive Clemency, which has
responsibility for restoring civil rights to ex-
convicts. To change clemency procedures, Crist needed
the support of at least two of these members. Sink
favored restoring felons' rights, but Bronson and
McCollum have long been opposed. (McCollum's name may be
familiar from his role, while a Republican congressman,
in the impeachment of President Clinton.) McCollum was
not to be swayed, but Crist courted Bronson, and finally
won him over by promising to exempt some felons from
automatic restoration of rights. Under the plan,
murderers and sex offenders will have to apply to the
state board to get back their voting rights, and people
who've been ordered to pay restitution to their victims
must be fully paid up before they can vote.
Such restrictions have irked activist groups. Howard
Simon, director of the Florida chapter of the ACLU, says
he's concerned that people who were released from prison
years or decades ago might encounter bureaucratic
difficulties in trying to win back their vote. Simon is
also considering legal action to fight the requirement
that felons pay restitution before they can vote, and
says that the ACLU would have preferred if the governor
had allowed all ex-felons -- regardless of their crimes
-- to vote. "I think that fairness requires it," he
says.
At the same time, Simon appreciates Crist's efforts. "I
just got back from talking with the governor, and what
he said is, 'I'm doing what is doable,'" Simon says. He
adds, "If this gets implemented as the governor has
indicated to me, it looks like the most significant
addressing of the voting rights and civil rights crisis
here in Florida maybe in the last 30 years."
***
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/opinion/08rich.html?th&emc=th
Sunday in the Market With McCain
By FRANK RICH
NY Times Op-Ed: April 8, 2007
JOHN McCAIN'S April Fools' Day stroll through Baghdad's Shorja market last
weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected
by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two
Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the "progress"
and "good news" in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy - reminiscent
of "Wedding Crashers," in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance -
the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters "I bought five rugs for five
bucks!," and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to
"a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."
Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we've really got that Iraq economy up and
running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed "McCain's Mission
Accomplished" and "McCain's Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op." But at a certain
point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus
casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six
Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit. "Your
heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can't have that kind
of entourage," said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain's stroll,
The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market's merchants and
workers were ambushed and murdered.
The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain
presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week's
announcement of Mr. McCain's third-place finish in the Republican field's
fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the
race on "60 Minutes" tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he
went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant
as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a
turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.
Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic
standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on
national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any
current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every
American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during
more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That's why when he
squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn't
hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington
mortals who still claim that the "surge" can bring "victory" in Iraq.
It can't be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the
2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician
of Mr. McCain's heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have
nowhere to go but down. They'll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just
watch as Mr. McCain's G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their
support for the administration's Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday
interview on "Good Morning America," Mitt Romney inched toward concrete
"timetables and milestones" for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they
shouldn't be published "for the enemy."
As if to confirm we're in the last throes, President Bush threw any
remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden
that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an
outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn't
even emerge for the Washington Nationals' ceremonial first pitch last week)
that he feels he has nothing left to lose.
Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just
as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked
Congress for taking 57 days to "pass emergency funds for our troops" even
though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill
in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for "pork and other spending that has
nothing to do with the war," though last year's war-spending bill was also
larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural
subsidies to the president's own request for money for bird-flu preparation.
Mr. Bush's claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he
couldn't
sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two
government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor
Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National
Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay
for the war until well into July. Since by that point we'll already be on
the threshold of our own commanders' late-summer deadline for judging the
surge, what's the crisis?
The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering
of the troops and their families - a button he had pushed five days earlier
when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal-ridden
Walter Reed. "Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will
mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved
ones to return from the front lines," he said. "And others could see their
loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to."
His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only
the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit
tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the
expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there
without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week's end, we would learn the
story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew
Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been
among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training
regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for
new troops in Iraq.
Meanwhile the Iraqi "democracy" that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet
another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for "working on
an oil law," though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a
commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush's
sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own.
Now it's not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding.
The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not
rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that
Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were
double those of the Iraqi Army in March.
Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in
the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is
depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being
offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death
toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly
secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David
Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi
government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared "a
free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq" in 2006, is a cauldron
of bloodshed.
If Baghdad isn't going to repeat Tal Afar's history, we will have to send
many more American troops than promised and keep them there until Mr. Maliki
presides over a stable coalition government providing its own security. Hell
is more likely to freeze over first. Yet if American troops don't start to
leave far sooner than that - by the beginning of next year, according to the
retired general and sometime White House consultant Barry McCaffrey - the
American Army will start to unravel. The National Guard, whose own new
involuntary deployments to Iraq were uncovered last week by NBC News, can't
ride to the rescue indefinitely.
The center will not hold, no matter what happens in the Washington standoff
over war funding. Surely no one understands better than Mr. McCain that
American lives are being wasted in the war's escalation. That is what he
said on David Letterman's show in an unguarded moment some five weeks ago -
though he recanted the word wasted after taking flak the morning after.
Like his Letterman gaffe, Mr. McCain's ludicrous market stunt was at least
in the tradition of his old brand of straight talk, in that it revealed the
truth, however unintentionally. But many more have watched the constantly
recycled and ridiculed spectacle of his "safe" walk in Baghdad than heard
him on a late-night talk show. This incident has the staying power of the
Howard Dean scream. Should it speed America's disengagement from Iraq, what
looks today like John McCain's farcical act of political suicide may some
day loom large as a patriot's final act of sacrifice for his country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
