Every election I plan to dig into all of those down ticket races and make intelligent decisions about judges and school board posts, etc. Now that I am gifted with some free time on the eve of the election, here goes.
Times endorsements: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1240701.ece
Tribune endorsements: http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2012/jul/30/5/our-endorsements-ar-446525/
US Senator
Bill Nelson has been a decent enough Senator. Far too conservative for my tastes, but you need to be conservative in Florida, and he’s nowhere near as conservative as he could be. He could easily have become a preening Joe Lieberman Blue Dog type, but he didn’t, and for that alone he’s pretty much earned my vote. Regardless, I looked into his primary opponent, Glenn Burkett, anyway. He describes himself as a “Hybrid Democrat” willing to take ideas from either party. A nice idea, but it seems an empty one as he’s given no indication of what kind of ideas he would take or where he stands on most issues. His website doesn’t give much info about that, and he doesn’t appear to have held any public office. The throw the bums out strategy may get you lots of nods of agreement, but won’t get you many votes. I’d vote for him for something like state senate, though, so he might set his sights a bit lower.
Supervisor of Elections
According to both local papers, current Supervisor of Elections Office Chief of Staff Craig Latimer deserves a lot of the credit for rebuilding the office after the tenure of self-promoting narcissist Supervisor Buddy Johnson. It’s an office that shouldn’t be a political one in any case, an opinion that was definitely cemented in my mind after Jeb Bush inflicted that sower of human misery Johnson on our county. Thomas Scott served ably on the city and county commission, or at least I don’t recall any particular scandals. But I’m going with Latimer because I don’t think a politician should be in that post.
13th Circuit Judge
Mark Wolfe is an experienced judge whom both papers describe in flattering terms. Johnnie Byrd is a former Speaker of the state house who was the most divisive, polarizing, controversial, and scandal ridden figure in that office until the next guy the GOP installed. This one is a no brainer.
County Court
Both papers describe incumbents Ann Ober and Matt Lucas as able justices whose opponents offer no compelling reason to replace them. Ann Ober’s opponent also has a history of DUI arrests. The other Judge race features three non-incumbents who appear to all have quality resumes. Both papers endorse Frances Maria Perrone but neither one really puts together an open and shut case for her, so I’m undecided.
School Board
I’m not sure where to come down on the Susan Valdes/Eddy Calcines race. Susan Valdes has popped up in the news frequently during her three terms, but I’m not sure if she’s blameless or a drama queen. Calcines seems like a decent fellow but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference between them, policy wise. I don’t like this potentially burdensome guest speaker notification policy that Valdes is supporting recently but I’m not sure that minor issue is enough to justify booting out an experienced incumbent.
The other Board race on my ticket is a six-way, with five challengers against incumbent Carol Kurdell. First to cross off the list are Terry Kemple, a homophobic and Islamophobic Tea Party-type, and Carl Kosierowski, a former bus driver who calls himself Captain Carl. Robert McElheny is a truck dealer who promises to bring business solutions to the school board, which always spells trouble. Both papers describe Joe Jordan-Robinson as an activist, but in unflattering terms. There is an actual teacher (and former CIA agent), Michael Weston, in the race, so I decided to give his platform a closer look, and I’m impressed with what he has to say about testing, technology, the arts, and extracurricular activities, so I’m going to vote for him. Both papers endorse Kurdell and describe her in very flattering terms, so you probably couldn’t go wrong voting for her instead.
In response to your 13th Circuit Judge suggestion...
ReplyDeleteActually, first of all, are you really letting related newspaper opinions be the sole deciding factor in your political endorsements? You must know that every news outlet, whether it's Fox News or MSNBC, is heavily biased, and periodicals are no different. How can you claim to "make intelligent decisions" when you are purposefully limiting yourself to opinions from only one side of the political spectrum? It'd be more reassuring if you had taken the opinions from other sources into consideration (even if you blatantly disagree with them) as opposed to literally just the Tampa Tribune/Bay Times.
How does this tie in to the 13th Circuit Judge suggestion for Mark Wolfe? You offer no personal insight, just a rehash of a newspaper that tends to criticize republican candidates...namely Johnnie Byrd. Try to put a little effort into your opinions (as in, don’t just quote newspapers), if you are meaning to advise others on who they should vote for.
But, clearly the most amusing part of your blog...the analysis of Johnnie Byrd. I'm going to break down each of your points against him.
First, "Divisive." This literally means that he created disunity in the House...but how does this apply to a non-partisan judicial election? It meant, in the House, that Byrd always "stuck to his guns," or that he didn't compromise his political beliefs. He was a stalwart conservative, maybe even annoyingly so, and he stayed that way throughout his tenure- he never meet halfway with those who disagreed with him, namely those with more liberal beliefs. This means one thing: you’d either love him or hate him. From a judicial perspective, this cannot be a bad thing. Because he did not compromise his political beliefs, (even if it was an unpopular choice to some) it is highly expected that he will not engage in judicial activism, or changing the way he would interpret the law from time to time. If he was known to settle for the desires of others and compromise his beliefs, it would be expected that that same action would manifest itself in the courtroom as judicial activism.
Second, “polarizing.” This is a synonym of divisive. See above.
Third, “controversial.” If you’re going to claim a fault this serious in a candidate, you might as well back up what you’re going to say with solid examples- and clearly biased news sources don’t count! If the purpose of your blog post was to advise undecided voters on whom to elect, then you shouldn’t assume they also know the specific “controversies” you so casually reference. The fact that you didn’t even mention ONE is strange, and takes the decidedness out of your appeal.
Fourth, and arguably most hilarious, “scandal ridden figure in that office until the next guy the GOP installed.” …Seriously? Scandal ridden? Please, humor me with the no doubt multitude of scandals that Johnnie Byrd has committed. It’s not like he was guilty of tax evasion and spent two years in jail (Bo Johnson), or that he was charged with third-degree felony grand theft and conspiracy and resigned after he was elected (Ran Sansom). No, no, Johnnie Byrd, was CLEARLY the MOST scandal ridden Speaker in the Florida House, like you say. Not only did he not have scandals, he passed legislation, creating the largest free-standing Alzheimer's research institute in the world...some scandal, huh? At any rate, he's got my vote, and for good reason.
Your utter ignorance is reprehensible.
So what other sources do you suggest I employ for information regarding local political races? This isn't a retort, I'm genuinely interested.
Delete"when you are purposefully limiting yourself to opinions from only one side of the political spectrum". So you think The Times and the Tribune are from the same side of the political spectrum? If you think that both are far too conservative, then I agree.
I thought I made it clear that Byrd was succeeded by worse Speakers, like Rubio, Sansom, etc. If Bo Johnson was worse than Byrd, well, my apologies to Byrd for my obvious hyperbole.
"Your utter ignorance is reprehensible." Well, glad we cleared that up.
"So what other sources do you suggest I employ for information regarding local political races? This isn't a retort, I'm genuinely interested. "
ReplyDeleteI would suggest avoiding any kind of information or opinions collected from news sources entirely. Go to town hall meetings and open forums; watch the candidates speak for themselves, let them convey their points and intentions without the inevitable spin from a periodical or news channel. Both Wolfe and Byrd have a handful of videos of them talking on the internet, and if not videos, at least direct quotes. Do not let the opinion of somebody else, or a newspaper no less, be the deciding factor in your political decisions. I believe we must try to make an effort ourselves to personally see and interact with these people we are putting in office, people we could find ourselves in court with one day. This isn't the presidential election- it is highly likely that sometime, somewhere over the summer, both of these candidates were speaking in an area close to where you reside, assuming you live in Hillsborough County.
"So you think The Times and the Tribune are from the same side of the political spectrum? If you think that both are far too conservative, then I agree."
Yes, and no...definitely not. If you think both really are far too conservative, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree!
However, even if I believed they were indeed far too conservative, and even if they had lauded Byrd and criticized Wolfe, I would still not have seriously considered their opinions. It is a second-hand source (at best) of confirming what a candidate means or intends; I will not take seriously articles that are written with the power to twist words, or to subtly praise or condemn people. It would be foolish to do so.
"I thought I made it clear that Byrd was succeeded by worse Speakers, like Rubio, Sansom, etc. If Bo Johnson was worse than Byrd, well, my apologies to Byrd for my obvious hyperbole."
When you say "Byrd is a former Speaker of the state house who was the most...scandal ridden figure in that office", that makes it sounds like he was the worst speaker, period. This is my overall point; I feel as if you are not objectively critiquing Byrd, as you should be. Put aside any political differences you may have had with him roughly 10 years ago, and try to understand his positions for Circuit Court Judge. He even has a Youtube channel that covers his views.
But I mean, have you seen the results? Byrd was annihilated! Mark Wolfe obviously isn't the worst judge on the planet, but, he is the incumbent after all. Because of Byrd's stated judicial philosophy and solid familial and moral background, I felt that he would have been a better choice. I recently witnessed Mark Wolfe at Brandon area judicial meet and greet, saying that this position of Circuit Judge will eventually advance him to the position of Appellate Judge- this shows that he doesn't even care that much about the circuit court position! I would hate to interact with a judge who is only "in it" for personal gain(in this case, a different office), as opposed to serving the community...the basic obligation of those holding a public office.