As of this writing, Tallahassee Circuit Judge Jackie L. Fulford has yet to make a decision on Kevin Ambler's lawsuit against Jim Norman.
Ambler, who was defeated by Norman for the state Senate District 12 Republican primary back in August, says that Norman should be disqualified from the November 2 ballot because he did not disclose on a state ethics form his ownership of an Arkansas house and two boats docked there.
Norman has maintained that he was in error regarding the boats, but not the house, because that was a "private" purchase by his wife. You know the story. The late Ralph Hughes is playing a major part in this drama posthumously, as it has been revealed that he provided money to Mearline Norman for the "joint" investment.
The longtime Hillsborough County Commissioner has taken severe damage since WFTS broke the story in July, mostly for being disingenuous when being asked about the home during August and September. It is not clear at all if there was anything illegal done. Ambler's suit, at best, could force Norman off the ballot and allow the Republican Party to name a new nominee, who for all we know right now could be Norman again (a la the situation with the Hillsborough Democratic party and its ballot issues with John Dingfelder and Linda Saul-Sena earlier this year).
Okay, so we know all that. But Norman is on the ballot in 2 1/2 weeks, and surely the voters of District 12, if they felt so inclined, could register their displeasure with Norman by voting for the Democrat in the race, right?
Uh, not exactly. In another indictment on the impotence of the Democratic Party in Hillsborough, the party never proffered a candidate to run in November.
So why is Norman still running? Because there are two write-in candidates listed, Derek Crabb and Kimberly Renspie. Unfortunately, neither has much credibility, since they barely have given any explanation about why they're running (if you think otherwise, read this story on the two by Marlene Sokol in the St. Pete Times).
All of this gets to our point this morning. The Times today endorsed Jim Norman for state Senate.
Are you friggin' kidding me?
The editorial reads in part:
There is no good choice here. Jim Norman's opponent in the Republican primary, state Rep. Kevin Ambler, is suing to remove Norman from the Nov. 2 ballot. Ambler alleges Norman filed false candidate qualifying papers to hide his involvement in a nearly half-million-dollar land deal with a local businessman and political supporter. The courts need to sort this out. Until they do, Norman is unfortunately the only serious choice.
Norman, 57, was a bad option even before the scandal over the land deal broke. He started out as a well-meaning supporter of parks and youth sports, but over his 18 years as a Hillsborough County commissioner, Norman became pushy and thin-skinned. He encouraged overdevelopment and inflamed tensions between urban and suburban residents. Still, Norman is a more credible choice than two write-in candidates. He has a record in office, an agenda and the only serious campaign. For all his faults, Norman keeps in touch with voters and understands state and local government. If the courts or authorities move against him over the land deal, the voters can move for a clean break. Until then, however, he is the only choice in the general election.
How about a simple "The Times chooses not to endorse in district 12" line at the end of this summary? Is it Times policy to always endorse a candidate in a local race, even when the choices are abominable?
It's not unheard of do such a thing. And perhaps more states should follow Nevada, who in 1975 gave voters that very option of "None of the Above" (which by the way could factor into the Harry Reid-Sharron Angle Senate race there).
We're well aware of the "Chinese Wall" between the reporting and editorial pages at all newspapers, and especially the Times. But if the Times really does want their endorsements to mean something, they clearly are putting their role as being an arbiter of good taste into question here.
An editorial just last Saturday in the Times blasted Norman for his ethical shortcomings, writing:
Regardless of the legal technicalities, Norman has no satisfactory defense for either the financing of the Arkansas house or his failure to disclose it. The purpose of requiring financial disclosures is so the public can see whether elected officials have a financial stake in helping those who come before them. Some officials won't accept a cup of coffee; Norman apparently thought six figures from a political kingmaker to his wife was legitimate business. No wonder the public's confidence in government is so low.
It is a shame that Norman is a shoo-in to win the state Senate seat in November. That's partly the fault of a primary system the major political parties rigged to keep easy control of safe seats. The Democrats also are to blame for not putting up a challenger for the general election. But Norman won the Republican primary, and the best course of action now is for the FBI to keep digging and determine whether serious criminal charges are warranted. A Senate seat and the integrity of government is at stake.
At various times over the years, voters have made their displeasure known by sitting out a race, or intentionally voting for a candidate who is no way qualified, as a protest vote (or what else would you say about the fact that a man named Mike McCallister took 10% of the vote in the Republican primary for governor? Most GOP voters had no clue who he was, but they knew he wasn't Bill McCollum or Rick Scott, and thus they scribbled the bubble next to his name as a protest vote).
Perhaps we're taking this too seriously, but what is the purpose of endorsing somebody that you clearly don't believe in? Isn't that cynical, and isn't that what the Times editorial board (rightly) has condemned in politicians over the years? We're curious if everybody was on board with the decision over at the Paul Tash/Neil Brown enterprise.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
