I could, of course, say the same about you.

>I notice you chose not to respond to the section where I quoted you from your radio program as asserting that the Republicans don’t lobby for security and actively lobby against it. But that’s what you said.

I didn’t mention it because there was nothing to say. I said it. It was a joke. You didn’t actually say why you thought that was remarkable, so I didn’t have a response.

>Again, said in a sarcastic, derisive manner, which you say is the way you say everything.

I intend sarcasm quite frequently. I only intend derision for enemies. That you take derision from what I say has nothing to do with me, it’s your interpretation based on your own worldview.

>Must make interpersonal relationships difficult.

Not in the slightest.

>I’ll tell you what’s wrong with saying that the Repugs are doing worse things, so why should we focus on something like this? Because to be better than they are you have to be better than they are, not just not as bad.

Not very good logic. If they are worse, then we aren’t as bad, by definition. And I don’t think what Thurman has done is remotely as bad as what the average Republican does.

>Also, I notice you skipped over the bit where I noted that Thurman is not just a paid flunky of Cardenas’ firm, she’s actually a partner in an LLC with a partner in Cardenas’ firm. Sounds like a little more of a relationship than just collecting a $3,500 monthly check.

Skipped over it because it didn’t strike me as remarkable. It establishes that she isn’t working for or with Cardenas directly, something I was already aware of. Unless there is evidence of impropriety, it doesn’t bother me.

>Is that really who you want running the Florida Democratic Party?

If I agreed with you, I’d say no, that’s not who I want running the party, but I don’t agree with your assessment.

>By the way, did you get the port joke?

Not really.

I find it interesting which bits of my post you choose to focus on and which you ignore. I notice you chose not to respond to the section where I quoted you from your radio program as asserting that the Republicans don’t lobby for security and actively lobby against it. But that’s what you said.

Again, said in a sarcastic, derisive manner, which you say is the way you say everything. Must make interpersonal relationships difficult.

I’ll tell you what’s wrong with saying that the Repugs are doing worse things, so why should we focus on something like this? Because to be better than they are you have to be better than they are, not just not as bad.

Also, I notice you skipped over the bit where I noted that Thurman is not just a paid flunky of Cardenas’ firm, she’s actually a partner in an LLC with a partner in Cardenas’ firm. Sounds like a little more of a relationship than just collecting a $3,500 monthly check.

I’ve been a critic of Karen Thurman since 2005, when I started receiving her insipid e-mails with their misspellings, grammatical errors and more blather than substance. Check it out here: http://www.pensitoreview.com/?s=thurman&Submit=GO

I’m not asserting that Thurman has bad intentions, just bad judgment, and I also believe she’s in over her head in the important role of Florida Democratic chair. Is that really who you want running the Florida Democratic Party?

By the way, did you get the port joke?

Sure you did. You set up an if-then statement wherein the if specifically and positively applied to us.

>However, they did say some things that sounded like maybe if you didn’t agree with their position, then you were simply a pure puzzlement to them, like a geek in a sideshow.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is totally made up. Neither I nor Eddie said any such thing and I know I never thought such a thing. I doubt severely Eddie did, either. Besides, the only part where I said I was baffled was in specific response to Democrats who complained about this. Since you aren’t a Democrat, that obviously wasn’t a reference to you.

>While expressing extreme puzzlement about why anyone would care about such a non-issue and dismissing the topic as not worthy of his consideration

Nothing extreme about it, although I was then and am still puzzled by reactions such as yours. In my opinion, it is a non-issue. It certainly was worthy of my consideration, since I discussed it as the second item on the show and had previously posted about it on the blog.

>it was in a sarcastic, derisive, dismissive tone

Those are simply incorrect interpretations of the way I spoke about it. There was some sarcasm, but I say everything with sarcasm. Nothing I said was intended to be derisive or dismissive. When I say it’s a non-issue to me thats because it is. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong for others to say it is an issue. When I say that I don’t understand the complaints, that’s because I don’t, not because I’m being dismissive.

>The Republicans are doing worse things, so why should we focus on this?

You deride this, but you don’t give me any reason to think this approach is wrong.

>but I never said I was his “ally.” But I’ll take the high road on that one

I can actually produce an e-mail where you expressed support for FPC and clearly we agree on most of the actual issues. That, to me, makes an ally.

>The fact is, Thurman did not disclose to the FDP that she was lobbying on behalf of Miami-Dade County

And, as I expressed in comments at FPC, I agree that was a mistake.

>Quinnell likes to quote the Miami Herald as saying she’s lobbying to get more funds for security for the Port of Miami.

I’ve been given no reason not to quote that.

>Another insightful quote from Quinnell’s radio blog was, “And who’s against increasing security?” Like, who’s against Mom and apple pie?

Isn’t it?

>What kind of security are we talking about here?

Obviously, without any actual evidence, I’m not buying your analysis of the “real” reason for the lobbying.

>that in politics the mere appearance of impropriety is enough.

Not to me it isn’t. Impropriety is necessary for me.

>And those achievements and inroads the Dems have made in Florida over the past two years that Quinnell is quick to lay at Thurman’s feet? I’m more inclined to credit George W. Bush and his cronies for growing the Democratic Party than Thurman’s part-time efforts.

I actually didn’t “lay that at Thurman’s feet.” I said she had “something to do with it.” Neither I, nor you, know how much impact she has had because we don’t have enough information. I do know that Thurman’s “part-time” efforts consist of 60-80 hours a week.