Sunday, June 18, 2006

Liberal Rod Smith?

In the Legislature, Rod Smith is the Democrat Republicans comfortably work with and once was recruited to switch parties. But in the Democratic primary for governor, state Sen. Smith is winning over some of the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party. At least that's what we've noticed while Smith has campaigned lately in the back yard of U.S. Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa, his primary rival. Tampa Bay Smith supporters sniff at Davis' supporting reauthorization of the Patriot Act or missing a vote recently on "net neutrality" concerning internet access.

Friday, Smith is scheduled to attend a fundraiser at the home of former St. Petersburg mayoral candidate (and Dennis Kucinich-for-president organizer) Ed Helm. Among those hosting the event for the former Gainesville area prosecutor? Randy Heine, a head shop owner (he insists it's merely a smoke shop) and perennial candidate.

The following Monday, Smith is set to raise money in Tampa among a mix of liberal grass roots activists and establishment politicians. Among the prominent politicos we see on one of those invitations is Public Defender Julie Holt.

posted by Adam C. Smith @ 6/18/2006 08:19:00 AM    

44 Comments:

  • At 9:08 AM, June 18, 2006, SkinkTyree said…

    Smith's still got to contend with his "A" rating from the NRA, his next to last rating from the League of Conservation Voters on environmental issues, his vocal death penalty support, and his coziness to big utilities.

    I wouldn't say he's captured the liberal base quite yet.

     

  • At 10:24 AM, June 18, 2006, bobnbob said…

    Rod Smith is THE CANDIDATE that Republicans fear most - he won't back down, he does the job his constituents have elected him for and he takes no prisoners .... Rod Smith is the ONLY candidate to stand up to Bush and the ONLY candidate to be able to handle Crist - gallagher is a nonissue .....Rod Smith is THE CANDIDATE that Crist wants to face the least

    Go Rod Go!

     

  • At 10:33 AM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    skinktyree (am I the only one whose skin crawls when I read your name),

    Smith has voted his conscience on issues that the NRA feels are important, rooted in his belief as a constitutional law scholar that lawmakers can't pick and choose to give greater weight to some amendments to the U.S. Constitution while ignoring others. As such, the NRA has given him such a rating; he didn't "pander" for it, nor does it detract from his belief that those charged and convicted with any of the numerous laws concerning crimes involving a firearm should be dealt with severely.

    As stated repeatedly, the League of Conservation Voters rating was not based on environmental issues as you falsely stated, it was based upon Smith's stance on raising the bar for proposed amendments to the State's Constitution.

    While he led the effort to preclude the execution of the mentally challenged and other measures to insure that the accused or convicted's due process rights are satisfied, he does support the death penalty. That would be pretty evident to anyone who has read his bio or heard him introduced when it is mentioned that he, "prosecuted Danny Rollings, who is currently on Florida's death row, for the murder of 5 Gainesville coeds."

    "coziness to big utilities," I'm lost on that one. More often than not, he has sided with the Muni's and the rural electrics which I assume one would consider the "smaller utilities" - I guess you are taking a "spaghetti against the wall" approach.

     

  • At 11:07 AM, June 18, 2006, Capemont said…

    Can you explain why Smith said he "categorically opposed civil unions and gay adoption" in 2000 but now on the campaign trail in liberal heavily-gay Broward, Palm Beach and Miami Dade - actively touts his "long standing support for civil unions and gay adoption"? That IS pandering.

    The gun issue might be Rod's true feelings but his stance is still unusually extreme. He has indictaed repeatedly that he would oppose legislation that would ban automatic weapons not useable for hunting. That's a bit too far to the right on the gun issue for most democratic voters, myself included.

    And since Smith is performing worse against both republicans than Davis in Smith's OWN DISTRICT according to every poll with a regional break down, the electability argument is kind of dead as well.

     

  • At 11:58 AM, June 18, 2006, eagleskin said…

    Smith hasn't forgotten that Florida is a highly diverse state made up of people who work the land, don't earn a living wage, aspire to send a child from their family as the first to go to college (like Smith himself) and struggle daily to provide for themselves and their families. He hasn't forgotten where he came from and that the Governor needs to be Governor of all the people, not just those who agree with him or are comfortable.
    I don't agree with him on every issue, but at least he's open about what he believes and why.

     

  • At 12:27 PM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    capemont -

    I give both candidates the benefit of the doubt on their history on gay rights issues. Although I can't remember when the issue has risen to a vote in the Republican controlled Legislature over the last 6 years, am I to deduce that because Davis voted for an amendment in 1998 to ban the use of any federal funds to facilitate an adoption by two individuals that are not blood-related or aren't married, that we can now deduce that he was/is against gay adoption? (Amendment871 to HR4380)

    Further, your contention that Smith is against the ban on automatic weapons that are not used for hunting is, per usual of the Davis supporters, poorly researched. Automatice weapons are already illegal under state law and anyone who owns one can only legally own one without a federal permit. Again, the issues surrounding firearms in a Republican controlled Legislature over the last several years have not been the classic "pro-gun/anti-gun" variety. They have been more peripheral in nature, such as in this past session where a bill was introduced to prohibit employers from barring employees from carrying weapons in their vehicles while parked on their business' property. Smith opposed the bill - not because he was pandering or posing to be something he is not; rather, he feels that an individual's private property rights supercede the right to possess a firearm by an another individual who is free to choose whether or not they want to work for such an employer with such a prohibition.

    The anecdotal polls to which you refer that were conducted over the last year before this race got started will only serve to leave you with questions following the election as to how the momentum shifted so quickly and so decisively in favor of Smith.

     

  • At 1:41 PM, June 18, 2006, buzzgrump said…

    Thank you for writing this!

    At long last someone is matching Rod's campaign rhetoric with his actual record.

    Rod campaigns like a liberal but votes like a Republican. We can go point by point but let's save time. And all you Rod Squaders just answer this one, simple question:

    True or False: Rod Smith is Chair of a Committee in the Senate?

    That's true. Rod Smith is Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

    Now why on earth does anyone think the Republicans gave Rod Smith a committee chairmanship?

    Suddenly, not enough Republicans to go around? Or is it that Republicans are all of sudden interested in being bi-partisan?

    No, the answer is simple. Republicans trust Rod Smith because Rod Smith is a Republican.

    The GOP would never be stupid enough to hand over a Committee to someone who they had to worry about. And if you think they'd give a committee chair to a "liberal" you already spend too much time at that "head shop."

    And don't for one second buy that line about the Republicans are scared of Rod Smith. Republicans are so scared of him they made him a Committee Chair? If they were really scared of Rod Smith, they'd lock him out of the chamber.

    Anyone else on this blog notice that Rod Smith's biggest fan on here is "moderate" who says he's a Republican? I'm sure that's just a coincidence too.

    Rod does deserve credit though for being able to hoodwink so many people. That's pretty impressive. And it shows that Democrats are so starved for a win, they'll believe anything.

    Congrats to the SPTimes for getting the headline right, too. Liberal Rod Smith? Yea, since the day he began to run for Governor.

     

  • At 1:43 PM, June 18, 2006, SkinkTyree said…

    Adam's Professor--

    Clearly you don't read much Carl Hiaasen if you don't get the name....

     

  • At 2:52 PM, June 18, 2006, 419 said…

    Chair of Ag..Support from liberals...big events in Tampa..."salt and pepper" of Boyd and Meek...dead heat in the first poll by a real pollster...

    Sounds to me like we've found the one Democrat who can win in every part of the state.

     

  • At 3:47 PM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    buzzgrump -

    Rather than "We can go point by point but let's save time" didn't you mean to write

    "We could go point by point, but for the fact that my understanding of the issues and the process is embarrassingly limited. In light of that I will just repeat ad nauseum the same tired accusations I have repeated over and over on this blog, not unlike Davis who repackages and parades out the same endorsements over and over."

    skintyree - I have read Hiaasen, years ago, and can honestly say that it had so little impact on me that I don't think I can recall a plot or title, let alone a character; which, I believe is the way it is suppose to be with literature of similar genre.

     

  • At 5:23 PM, June 18, 2006, moderate said…

    buzzgrump

    I didn't realize there was a wall between the parties, where rational voters couldn't choose a candidate regardless of the big letter after their name.

    If no Democrat ever voted for a Republican, how the heck do you think our state looks the way it does?

    If you were a smarter Democrat, you would be welcomming voters from the other side of the aisle into the fold.

    But then again, if you were a smarter democrat, you would be in camp Smith too.

    And if you were a "really" smart Democrat, you would be a Republican.

    (Sorry to all me D freinds and my wife (I'm in a mixed marriage you see) I couldn't help myself on that last one.) lol!!!

    Why would the Democrats make Rod Smith a committee chiar?

    Maybe because the republicans were smart enough to be inclusive, especially in the act of putting the person in charge of an issue, who knows more about that issue than annyone else.

    By the way, Skip Campbell also chaired committees under both King and Lee.

    Are you not going to vote for Skip in the AG race?

    Wasserman-Schultz played very well with the R's when she was vice-chair of appropriations, are you questioning her Democratic Credentials?

    If no one ever gave people from the other team important roles in their organization, do you think we would have ever won WW II?

    Think hard on that one Buzz, it is in fact "rocket science".

     

  • At 5:37 PM, June 18, 2006, Capemont said…

    adam's professor -

    Even though there has not been a vote in recent time on the automatic weapons issue, Rod has stated in his Project-Vote Smart NPTs that he opposes that ban. And since its not out of the realm of possibility for the issue to re-emerge, that's something that should be a concern for democratic voters.

    Regarding the civil unions and gay marriage issue - I can only assume that Davis voted in favor of it to save the bill which grants massive scholarhips to poor students in the District of Columbia as the bill only passed by 8 Ayes - one of which was cast by the author of the amendment you mentioned.

    In his 18+ years in the legislature, Davis has consistently spoken publicly of his support for civil unions and gay adoptions in front of a variety of audiences. My concern over this issue isn't so much for the issue itself, but rather over the way Rod's treatment of this issue demonstrates his willingness to pander. For Rod to have made public remarks railing against civil unions and gay adoption and then four years later tout them in South Florida, brings his credibility severely in to question for me.

     

  • At 5:41 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Stinktyree:

    First, I am a Rod Smith for Governor supporter.

    Given his history, he is a candidate who does not reflect the extremes. Nor does Jim Davis. Both will attract "liberals". Both will not attact other "liberals". So what?

    Paul

     

  • At 5:43 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Adam's Professor:

    If my memory serves me correctly, all five of the Danny Rolling victims were not female.

    Paul

     

  • At 5:43 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Capemont:

    Is not anything political "pandering" to someone?

    Paul

     

  • At 5:45 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Eagleskin:

    "I don't agree with him on every issue, but at least he's open about what he believes and why."


    I readily agree! He has proven that again and again and again - as the elected prosecutor and as State Senator.

     

  • At 5:47 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Adam's Professor:

    "...the momentum shifted so quickly and so decisively in favor of Smith."


    Now that is a fact.

    Paul

     

  • At 5:51 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Buzzgrump:

    Remember Betty Easley?

    Remember Al Lawson?

    And there have been plenty of others who served as committee chairs, although a member of the other party. At times substantial "deals" are involved, but usually - also - the leadership wants to incorporate that particular member into a leadership position because that person is the better candidate for a committee chair.

    Rod Smith worked to defeat the Republican plans regarding smaller class size and vouchers. Those are two key Republican issues, yet Tom Lee did not have Smith resign from the leadership. Now THAT speaks volumes about the quality of leadership for both Tom Lee and Rod Smith.

     

  • At 5:58 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    As the elected State Attorney from 1992 - 2000, no liberal is going to win in that Judicial Circuit, except for Alachua County.

    THAT indicates that Rod Smith is much more than a liberal, a conservative, whatever.

    For those of you who have such attachment to such labels: That indicates not much of substance to share.

     

  • At 5:59 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    419:

    "Chair of Ag..Support from liberals...big events in Tampa..."salt and pepper" of Boyd and Meek...dead heat in the first poll by a real pollster..."

    Your summary of key points are on target.

     

  • At 6:02 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Moderate:


    "If no one ever gave people from the other team important roles in their organization, do you think we would have ever won WW II?"

    Truer words are seldom stated.

     

  • At 6:03 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Capemont:


    "And since its not out of the realm of possibility for the issue to re-emerge, that's something that should be a concern for democratic voters."

    Why?

     

  • At 6:05 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Capemont:

    "...willingness to pander."


    If one is seeking public office, one panders to someone -- it is the nature of the beast.

     

  • At 6:31 PM, June 18, 2006, SkinkTyree said…

    Paul in re: 5:41--

    Well, at least you're honest and up front about being on the Smith campaign.

    I agree with you neither Smith nor Davis can really be catagorized as being "liberal" and both are going to have to work hard to attract that voting block if they want to win.

    I guess my main reservations about Smith is that he just more or less comes off playing to both sides almost schizophrenically. Out of one end of his mouth he's the gun friendly law and order guy who brags about sending Danny Rolling to Death Row; on the other end of his mouth he tries to appease liberals by proclaiming his support for base issues like abortion rights (an issue, by the way, I feel is way overblown by the extremes of both sides of the debate and one that I'd like to see shelved as a major issue).

    Whereas Davis, a moderate Democrat, comes off as well...a moderate Democrat. I think you and I can both agree he's not as polished politically as Smith in things like the speaking department, but I just don't get the sense he's straining to be all things to all people like Smith does.

    Not to say everything about Smith is bad. I like his outlook on education and appreciate his hand in sinking the voucher bill this session. But there are certain things about Smith which make me a tad nervous, such as his environmental record.

     

  • At 6:52 PM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    capemont -

    You just lie - it is as simple as that. Rod Smith has never made any public statements regarding civil unions or gay adoption and the term "rail against" takes your assertion past the point of misleading to blatant lying. The project votesmart document you misread and misquote on a regular basis is a typical check off that is akin to a Briggs-Meyer test filled out in 2000.

    You have stated repeatedly that it reveals that Smith is not pro-choice, but the comment noted on it by Smith states, "I support Roe v Wade or a practical application of the balance between the mothers privacy rights and the right of a viable fetus." I don't know how you read that more clearly.

    The issue to which you refer regarding firearms was a checkoff of measures the candidate would "support", it included a hypothetical measure that would put a ban on the sale or transfer of "semi-automatic" (note there is a difference between those and "automatic weapons"). Smith left that box unchecked. But he also left unchecked a number of boxes of which the pro-gun lobby might be in favor. Do we deduce he is anti-gun? No, the project votesmart form is one that candidates fill out between making fundraising calls and campaigning and, in the big scheme of things doesn't say much. It is anecdotal, but only "smoking gun" gadflies who want to point to one checked or unchecked box as some sort of evidence that it should be used to supercede ones political body of work.

    For that matter, Jim Davis has never responded to project votesmarts' requests over the years to fill out their form.

    As far the vote against federal funds for gay adoptions (trust me, that was the basis of the amendment), the amendment was close, but not that close. It passed 227-192, Davis could have voted against it had that been his inclination. In previous posts you have given Davis a pass for not showing up for votes and now, in your words, it was critical that he vote in favor of this measure to save the overall bill. Trust me, this amendment was greater than the words on its page. It was a Congressional expression against gay adoptions, everyone knew it at the time, there wasn't any question, and Davis voted in favor of it. The bill it was attached to wasn't some must-pass cornerstone legislation. Perhaps Davis would go back and change his vote, if so, that is his perogative. As I stated before, unlike you, I'm giving both candidates the benefit of the doubt on these issues; I don't call what Davis did "panderering," I call it reconsidering the issue and changing his position. I don't know if Davis ever sponsored or supported legislation that would have rescinded the State's prohibition on gay adoption or in regards to civil unions, I can only begin with that Congressional vote up until today and only come to the conclusion that his position has changed.

    Paul - sorry, you are correct, the victims of the Gainesville student murders were 4 young women and one young man. We sometimes mistakenly refer to both men and women who attend institutions that are coeducational, in this case, Santa Fe Community College and UF, as "coeds".

     

  • At 8:21 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Skinktyree:

    If a previous poster's comment about the environmental record of (what was the organization) Smith being fairly negative primarily because of the citizen initiative issue, then that alone should not be considered purely an environmental issue.

    However, I am very much opposed to tampering with the citizen's initiative provisions in the Florida Constitution. Fortunately, such proposals failed this legislative session. However on the November ballot is a real mean legislative proposals that I hope Floridians will shoot down and by a very wide margin:


    REQUIRING BROADER PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

    Reference:
    Article XI, Section 5

    Summary:

    Proposes an amendment to Section 5 of Article XI of the State Constitution to require that any proposed amendment to or revision of the State Constitution, whether proposed by the Legislature, by initiative, or by any other method, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the voters of the state voting on the measure, rather than by a simple majority. This proposed amendment would not change the current requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment imposing a new state tax or fee be approved by at least 2/3 percent of the voters of the state voting in the election in which such an amendment is considered.
    .......

    This proposal would have virtually eliminated most citizen initiative proposals of the past.

    At a Leon County Democratic Executive Committee meeting in April, Smith made some interesting comments: He would prefer that there are fewer arrests, convictions, and persons in prison - and that thus early intervention programs are essential - and thus he fully supports such programs. He said that prior to elective office he was a labor lawyer. I don't know anything further on this point. Perhaps his website may say more.

    My next posting will be my press release on death warrant issues -- for information on that issue.

    As you know abortion rights will never be off the political table. The issue is the most divisive issue in American politics - in my considered opinion. When some support abortion rights and others call abortion murder, that is the recipe for an eternally divisive issue.

    Adam Smith wrote an insightful column on the issue on April 30, 2006.

    Davis' abilities in speaking and debating is a major concern for me. Without great skills in this department, the result will likely be a very poor performance in general election debates. And that would hurt badly if a close race.

    I consider myself an environmentalist. More will come out during the campaign for sure - and perhaps his website provides more details.

    I'm so busy posting at various message boards that I haven't gotten around to looking at any updates on the websites for the candidates.

    Paul

     

  • At 8:24 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    For Immediate Release: May 14, 2006
    Contact: Paul D. Harvill:

    DEATH WARRANTS POLICY AND CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR POSITIONS - OR LACK THEREOF


    Tallahassee --- The initial March 30, 2006, email request for the governor candidates stated: "Will you adopt the Governors Chiles and Bush model and policies regarding the death penalty? Any other policy positions on death penalty issues?" Further inquires to all four campaigns were made on April 13th, April 17th, April 25th, May 3rd, as well as individual email communications at other times.

    The first campaign to respond was from CFO Gallagher by Brett Doster. Although numerous emails have been exchanged, the Gallagher campaign still has not directly responded to the central questions.

    The second to respond was directly from State Senator Rod Smith on Monday, April 25, 2006, at the Leon County Democratic Executive Committee meeting, at which time I asked the question during his presentation. Smith's response was that he would adopt the Chiles model.

    The third response was from the AG Crist campaign, with Erin Isaac responding, stating, "[W]e have not determined the specific procedure a Charlie Crist Administration will follow."

    No response has been received from the U.S. Rep. Davis campaign.

    The Governors Chiles/Bush model is as follows:

    Allow a capital case to proceed through the entire direct appeal and post-conviction appeals from the state trial court, the Florida Supreme Court, and the Federal Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, at which time if there is not further significant litigation in state courts nor in Federal courts, a death warrant may be signed, but not necessarily will be signed.

    Another aspect of the Chiles/Bush model regards volunteers for execution: As long as the competency is fairly established as required by law, then someone who volunteers to be executed will be given his or her death warrant to accomplish that desire. However death warrants are not signed on behalf of volunteers during direct appeal. The volunteer must also waive all or any remaining post-conviction appeals.

    It is presumed that all four candidates will sign death warrants.

    About me:

    1) From 1986 - 1992, my employment was as an investigator at the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) in Tallahassee.

    My favorite case is that of Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. (St. Augustine, St. Johns County), wherein during the course of my investigation, a plethora of withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland was discovered, resulting on February 15, 2001, with the unanimous Florida Supreme Court order for a new trial.

    2) Common Cause in Florida governing board member since 1985, with legislative and other state and local level political activism commencing in 1981 on behalf of Common Cause, and independently of Common Cause.

    # # #

     

  • At 8:25 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Adam's Professor:

    I understand. Thanks for clarifying as I couldn't remember if the victims included one male or two.

    Paul

     

  • At 8:34 PM, June 18, 2006, Beatrix Kiddo said…

    The Gainesville Murder victims were Sonja Larson, Christina Powell, Christa Leigh Hoyt, Tracy Paules and Manuel Taboada. They are permanently memorialized on the 34th Street Wall.

     

  • At 9:03 PM, June 18, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Beatrix Kiddo:

    Although I haven't visited that area of Gainesville in quite some time, I remember the wall.

    I thought I had read some time ago that the wall was no longer present - painted over or something. It appears that the information I received was incorrect.

    Paul

     

  • At 9:37 PM, June 18, 2006, Capemont said…

    Well Paul, most democratic primary voters would like to keep the assault weapons ban in place. It's good you admit that Rod is willing to pander to specific groups by changing his opinion depending on the intended audience. That is probably why the Rod Smith web site's issue page has about 1/15th the depth of Davis'. The Florida's Promise document is one of the most in-depth issue statements I have seen this early from any candidate in any gubernatorial race. GO TO THE ROD SMITH WEB SITE AND TRY TO FIND ANY MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES. There's a reason Rod is afraid/unable to put his platform down in writing.

    And Adams Professor - I agree the lack of a check mark on the NPAT isn't concrete but the the NPAT isn't needed to deduce Smith's stance on the assault weapons issue, as Rod received the NRA's endorsement in 2000 - something which is virtually impossible to receive without answering a "no" on the NRA survey on the assault weapons ban issue.

    And the civil unions issue is one of the few things on the NPAT that IS 100% clear. Unlike the majority of questions which ask for a checkmark to indicate support, that question required a Yes or No. As you well know and are trying to hide, Rod's response to the question "Should Florida recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?" was NO. This isn't a deduction, that's Rod's own statement. Why does his mind change on that issue whenever he is in Broward and Miami Dade counties?

    Davis has made his support for civil unions clear in every single race he's run over the past 18 years. You misunderstood what I pointed out about the vote. My argument is that the overall bill you mentioned which gave scholarships to poor families only passed by literally a handful of votes, including the congressman who offered the amendment you pointed to. Had that amendment not been attached, I'm willing to bet that vote would have been lost and the overall scholarship package jeapordized.

     

  • At 10:06 PM, June 18, 2006, moderate said…

    As for those folks who try and justify Jim Davis' missing of votes that they claim weren't close.

    Moral character is what someone does when no one is watching.

    Does a person do the right thing, even when it doesn't matter?

    By the sound of things, if it's not a big issue Mr. Davis doesn't feel the need to represent his constituents.

    He would get crushed by either republican candidate on that issue among many others.

    Jim has the Buddy McKay curse. Descent guy, but just uninspiring.

     

  • At 10:13 PM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    Social questions top election agenda
    The Tampa Tribune
    June 22, 1998

    "Davis is no advocate of gay rights, said Nadine Smith, executive director of the Human Rights Task Force of Florida, an advocacy group for homosexual rights. 'If cornered, he'll occasionally do the right thing.'

    Capemont - you my friend, are a boob.

     

  • At 11:12 PM, June 18, 2006, Capemont said…

    You know as well as I do that HRTFF's problem in that quote is Davis' opposition to gay marriage. He's never stated support for gay marriage and he's never stated opposition to civil unions.

    Why have you abandoned your defense of Rod's non-existant issues page or his complete reversal on the civil union issue? Maybe its time to move on to the next out-of-context attack on Davis that ignores the criticisms of Smith that have been posted here?

     

  • At 11:50 PM, June 18, 2006, adam's professor said…

    Capemont, you are of little cerebral significance. One only need read up the thread to see that I haven't "ignore(d) the criticisms of Smith that have been posted here(.)"

    The HRTFF's quote was due also in part to Davis' vote to bar federal funds for gay adoptions. Other states allow gay adoptions and Davis voiced his opposition to facilitating those by voting against any federal assistance to aid and abet such adoptions. He could have vote against it, the amendment still would have passed, 226-193 instead of 227-192, and he could have even been excused for voting in favor of the overall bill so that the "nationally" significant scholarship program to which you refer would have been implemented. But he didn't; he chose to create a federal impediment to gay adoptions.

    Get over it - both candidates have evolved in their positions, it is a credit to both of them that they aren't stunted in their political growth. Do Davis a favor and if you want to assist his campaign - research the background of issues rather than believing that you can just espouse something and will it to be true.

    I am quite certain in your myopic circle of neophytes you are viewed as brilliant, but this is the big leagues and if you want to argue a point the simple invoking of "'studies' show" and "'they' say" doesn't work.

    The Republican Legislature would have a field day with a Davis Administration should some of the Davis' bloggers on this site actually play a role in furthering his agenda.

     

  • At 7:14 PM, June 19, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Capemont:


    "It's good you admit that Rod is willing to pander to specific groups by changing his opinion depending on the intended audience."

    Please, please, name me someone who hasn't.

    "The Florida's Promise document is one of the most in-depth issue statements I have seen this early from any candidate in any gubernatorial race."

    Just curious: How long have you been following such issue statements for governor?

    Good for Rod's support from the NRA. Please enlighten us to ALL the questions in the Unified Sportsmen of Florida (Florida NRA branch) issues poll and the complete issues analysis done by them since you appear to be knowledgable on the subject.

    NPAT? I am not familiar - pleaase explain. Thanks.


    "Why does his mind change on that issue whenever he is in Broward and Miami Dade counties?"

    An assertion without evidence is not worth much. Can you provide evidence?

     

  • At 7:15 PM, June 19, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Moderate:


    "Jim has the Buddy McKay curse. Descent guy, but just uninspiring."


    Now that is a fair critique.

     

  • At 7:17 PM, June 19, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Moderate:


    "Moral character is what someone does when no one is watching."


    Now that is a silm-move as the voting records are not secret. Thus people are watching.

     

  • At 7:19 PM, June 19, 2006, Paul D. Harvill said…

    Moderate:


    "Does a person do the right thing, even when it doesn't matter?"


    Please let go of the not voting on votes that make no difference. It hurts your caseu.

    Move on to truly substantive critiques.

    You are using an old technique that most of the voters in the elections already know means little to nothing. You are assuming that voters are pretty stupid.

     

  • At 9:19 PM, June 19, 2006, Capemont said…

    Hi Paul,

    The NPAT is located here.

    In 2000, Rod unequivocally stated his opposition to civil unions. However, in each of the many speeches I've seen Rod give here in Broward county, he uses very strong language (abhorrent, offensive, etc.) to describe the inability of gay couples to form civil unions. He even some times tells a little anectotal story about a gay partner unable to claim rightfully deserved benefits.

     

  • At 9:42 PM, June 19, 2006, adam's professor said…

    House bill would ban lesbians and gays from adopting children
    Naples Daily News (FL)
    August 8, 1998

    (Largent) added: 'Sure, it might give some gay-rights advocates a warm feeling to see gay couples treated just as if they were married. But these are real kids . . . who have already had a rough start. . . . It is simply wrong to turn them into trophies from the culture war, to exploit them in order to make some political point.'

    But Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said the amendment would deny children in need a loving home. It would 'allow a philandering married husband who abuses his wife on a regular basis to be able to legally adopt a child,' he said.

    'But if two nuns felt God's calling to adopt a disabled, blind child from Romania, under this amendment they would be prohibited from doing so.'"

    Adoption Amendment

    Bill Number: HR 4380
    Date: 1998-08-06
    Sponsor: Amendment: Rep Largent, Steve [OK-1]; Original Bill: Rep Taylor, Charles H. [NC-11]

    FL 2 Representative
    Allen Boyd Democrat N

    FL 3 Representative
    Corrine Brown Democrat N

    FL 6 Representative
    Clifford 'Cliff' B. Stearns
    Republican Y

    FL 7 Representative
    John L. Mica Republican Y

    FL 9 Representative
    Michael 'Mike' Bilirakis
    Republican Y

    FL 10 Representative
    C. W. Bill Young Republican NV

    FL 11 Representative
    James 'Jim' Davis Democrat Y

    FL 15 Representative
    David Weldon Republican Y

    FL 16 Representative
    Mark Foley Republican N

    FL 18 Representative
    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican Y

    FL 19 Representative
    Robert Wexler Democrat N

    FL 21 Representative
    Lincoln Diaz-Balart Republican Y

    FL 22 Representative
    E. Clay Shaw Republican Y

     

  • At 9:56 PM, June 19, 2006, adam's professor said…

    ....and Davis 7 years later at a at a conference for gay and lesbian Democrats

    How close is close enough?
    St. Petersburg Times (FL)
    February 5, 2006
    Author: S.I. ROSENBAUM

    "Davis said he would propose an end to the state's ban on gays and lesbians adopting children.

    'If you want to adopt, you ought to have every opportunity in the world to stand before a judge and convince him or her that you're a fit parent,' he said."

    Pandering? No. Changing his position? Without a doubt.

     

  • At 1:07 AM, June 20, 2006, adam's professor said…

    I just couldn't pass this one up:

    Capemont - Do you just devolve into some trance-like state and through the art of zen come up with missives such as "In his 18+ years in the legislature, Davis has consistently spoken publicly of his support for civil unions and gay adoptions in front of a variety of audiences."

    When the record states:

    Race for Congress full of contradictions
    St. Petersburg Times
    October 25, 1998
    Author: RICHARD DANIELSON

    "Davis says he voted against letting gay couples adopt because, 'I'm just not convinced that it's appropriate to allow children to be raised in that environment.'"

     

  • At 12:30 PM, June 20, 2006, politicofsu said…

    Haha, at the home of Dennis Kucinich for President fundraiser. Rod is about as serious of a candidate for governor as Dennis was for president.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home