David Hunt of the Jacksonville Times-Union did an actual interview with US Senate candidate Dan Gelber and should be congratulated for asking substantive questions. Let me parse his responses.
First, here are the questions and answers that appeared in the story:
Miami and Jacksonville often are viewed as two different worlds. How are you embracing the differences in Florida's regional political attitudes for your campaign?
I think geography is a little overemphasized. People are going to have to get a sense of who I am. I think coming from a family of prosecutors will tell people what I care about.
What will be your campaign platform?
There's no question that the economy, is the issue for the moment but national security will be the issue for ages. With the economy, in Florida we missed an opportunity to build our workforce over the past 10 years. Florida's big economic challenge is our main product has been growth and our main policy has been optimism. But growth is not a product and optimism is not a policy.
As you talk about the need for job growth and education development in Florida, doesn't it stand to reason that you'd be in better position to influence these issues in Tallahassee instead of Washington?
A lot of these policies are coming nationally as well. If you look at the economic stimulus, a huge portion for education was cut out - in the U.S. Senate it was cut out. I think that was a huge mistake. I would have been railing against that.
Jacksonville has a distinction as the murder capital of Florida. How do you think you could change this as a federal lawmaker?
Obviously, we have a severe problem. A lot of that is because we have so many people who don't have a future. Multi-generational poverty breeds crime. Our schools are often called dropout factories. ... Florida's violent crime is not a problem of water or genetics.
In the past I have been critical of how Dan Gelber is marketing himself on the internet using Howie Klein’s encomium: "The hopes of Florida progressives were answered."
First, let me just ask you, are these the answers of a progressive?
In the response to the first one he says that people can get a sense of who he is by knowing he comes from a family of prosecutors. I don’t know about you, but to me, that sounds a lot like a Republican talking about Law and Order.
In the second response he pays homage to the current economic crisis but then says, "national security will be the issue for ages." What is the difference between this and a Republican talking about "terrorist threats"?
He makes the legitimately interesting comment that in Florida we missed an opportunity to build our workforce over the past 10 years. That’s actually something I would like to hear more about.
But then he makes a clever observation and follows it with a witty talking point: "growth is not a product and optimism is not a policy." More on that in a second.
I thought the author brought up a relevant issue with the third question ("you’d be in better position to influence these issues in Tallahassee"). Actually, this is what I’ve been saying about Dan. His calling is not in Washington as US Senator. His gifts do not lend themselves to that job. He can accomplish MUCH more working here in Florida. But, Dan does a good job of countering the question (though personally I would recommend against using the expression "railing against that").
On the last question he drops the "law and order" stance and converts back to the standard liberal talking points, i.e., "it’s not their fault."
Okay, let me make some "meta" observations here.
I don’t think any of this is progressive policy. I could post my tenets of The New Political Paradigm again, but I’m trying not to be TOO LONG here. If you disagree with me at least click on the link I just gave and read them before making a comment.
It doesn’t appear to me that St. Sen. Gelber is really in control of his message or has even thought very much as to what his message is. It seems like he said to himself, "Oh, I’m in a conservative area of the state, I need to shade what I say so I can appeal to the conservatives here." But then had to reverse that when asked about the murder rate, because he felt that was going to touch on racial perceptions.
So, who is he trying to appeal to? Does he think he’s already in the general election? Doesn’t he understand that he has to win a No-Runoff Democratic Primary first and that Democrats in Jacksonville aren’t any different than Democrats in Miami?
While Dan may have been smart to snap up Steve Schale he needs someone to deal with more than logistics. This type of sloppy messaging highlights a weakness of Dan’s, he’s not really ready for a state wide election. Kendrick Meek’s early jump into the race forced Dan to rush his own decision. And while he might have a cute website up (BTW WHERE’S MEEK’S?), he clearly needs to sit down and think through what his campaign strategy should be.
Now let me go back to the last part of the answer to the second question. "Florida's big economic challenge is our main product has been growth and our main policy has been optimism. But growth is not a product and optimism is not a policy."
This is a clever formulation, very witty. But, is it good campaigning? No.
One of the other problems with Dan is his humorlessness. This comment has the edge of an old testament prophet. "You people need to straighten up, OR ELSE!"
Now Mark Weaver over at Florida Progressive Coalition made what I would have to call an anti-Semitic attack on Dan over the issue of Israel, comparing Dan to Joe Leiberman. I would bet that Kendrick Meek’s stand on Israel is identical to Dan’s. That’s the nature of AIPAC and one reason we need campaign finance reform. But, that’s a whole ‘nother diary.
I think a more legitimate comparison to Joe Leiberman could be made over the issue of the self-righteous priggishness of each of them. This is what had Beth Reinhard rolling her eyes at Dan’s press conference.
It’s important for politicians to not be corrupt, but it’s not wise to flaunt your honesty and goodness. And a politician should NEVER attack optimism. You shouldn’t be delusional like Reagan, but it’s always useful to channel Bill Clinton when he said, "What is wrong with America can be fixed by what is right with America."
In fact, President Obama’s election proves the point.
So, what about the last answer? Oh boy, what can I say? And people thought my playing Phil Ochs’ "Love Me I’m A Liberal" was inappropriate. Well, it’s comments like this that made me do it.
Let me say right here, THERE ARE PLENTY OF POOR PEOPLE WHO AREN’T MURDERERS. To connect murder with poverty rates is DISGUSTING.
So, Ted Bundy’s problem was he came from a broken home? I don’t think so.
Manny Diaz didn’t reduce the crime rate in Miami with this old fashioned, paternalistic liberalism. He did it by bringing in a new police commissioner.
Now, what does ANY of this have to do with issues that a US Senator needs to be addressing? Probably nothing, the way Dan’s talking about things. Which brings us back to the interviewer’s third question, which boiled down to, "Why not keep working here in Florida to bring about change?"
I would like to second that suggestion. All of the negatives that I have listed here would actually be positives for what I’ve been calling The Democracy Czar, a position where squeaky cleanness is an asset. Dan is perfect for the role. And he would also make a great Lieutenant Governor when Pam Iorio beats Charlie Crist in 2010 (yes, columns about all this are coming).
And if anyone has seen an interview with Kendrick Meek you’d like me to parse, send me a link.