Replies

Interesting. I have also met and worked with Ms. Harris on many occasions durring her 2002 and 2004 campaigns, and never witnessed any of the foilables that you and so many others continue to point out.

Your writings appear fairly well considered. As for that cross you mentioned, I believe you severely underestimate the RNC's ability to destroy as well as create candidates. From speaking to lower members of her existing staff, it is quite clear to me that many left under threat from the GOP that if they continued their efforts they could kiss their political careers goodbye, a threat which many currently on board have defied, to their credit.

And lets us not forget the severe damage done to her public image by a hateful leftmedia that would simply love to see her dead. Six years of character assassination has a very powerful cumulative effect, even on people who like her. Funny how that words.

Sincerely believing this from all I have heard, read and personally observed, one thing that bugs me the most is that, since the RNC and, consequently, the Florida GOP, has actively worked to undermine her campaign from the get-go, the least they could have done is have a couple of viable candidates in the wings to replace her and guarantee a Republican winning over Nelson, something they have obviously not done with the few sorry, no-name offerings they have coughed up at the last minute. Pathetic, if you ask me.

Last year the rumors were flying that retired army general Tommy Franks might have been in the running. Now THAT would have made a lot more sense.

As it is, the GOP has done more to ensure Nelson continuing his Senate career more than anything the DNC could have done. What are your opinions on that?

Consider the way that political parties function. Ideas and personalities figure large, but state and national parties work to increase their power and elect candidates. Supporting unelectable candidates is luxury to be avoided and is rarely undertaken even when they are the nominee. If nothing else, major donors do not permit and other candidates object fiercely to wasted resources.

These days, in Florida at least, GOP party leaders and the RPOF staff have an abundance of collective political experience and resources. They may get things wrong, but are usually quite good on the large strategic decisions and on almost all the tactical choices. The GOP faithful are enthusiasts, as they should be. RPOF staff is professional.

There are twenty-somethings at the RPOF headquarters on East Jefferson in Tallahassee who have run half a dozen campaigns and worked on many dozens more. The political middle management types who run campaign operations on a statewide basis are the best of the breed, and the senior management and the better consultants are among the most capable in the country.

What you are suggesting about Harris’ former staffers is implausible because things are not done like that and it would be contrary to the best interests of those professionals. In politics, disloyalty is worse than being in a disfavored campaign or even having been in the other party. GW Bush actually has people working for him who were key figures in Pat Buchannan’s campaign against his father, and I can recite many similar examples.

Moreover, Harris picked her staff and consultants and alienated one team after another. One stayed out of loyalty despite her odd conduct, but then quit after learning that Harris lied to them about having been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury. The subpoena should also have been disclosed to the Speaker of the house but was not.

As a political professional, would you continue to work for a candidate after being abused personally and with your trust violated? The better grade of lawyers and accountants usually drops clients for abusing and lying to them, we drop friends for doing so, and people often quit jobs or marriages in such circumstances. Political campaigns call for much, but the sacrifice of one’s self-respect is usually not required.

As for Harris, since the 2000 election, she has had incredibly high negatives in statewide polling. Harris did not come off well in the Bush v. Gore controversy due to the news media, pummeling from Democrats, and the nature of the dispute. Despite the merit of ideas on offer, high personal negatives are exceedingly hard to reverse and are almost always fatal to a non-incumbent political candidate. Fair or not, that is the way that it is.

Harris disputed the polling even though it was done by the premiere GOP polling firm in the country. Her high negatives have been confirmed many times. Worse, Harris has done little to alleviate the opprobrium she gained in the 2000 election. Harris did not gain expertise or seniority. What does Harris offer to lure the disaffected to her camp? Why should a doubtful Republican or Independent vote for her – especially against the popular Nelson?

Even now, late in Harris’ Senate campaign, she has not tried to develop a signature issue, but has confirmed her prior reputation for wacky and imperious conduct. When Harris wins the primary, her campaign will still not catch fire. She will search for someone to blame. It will, of course, be the GOP.