Katherine Harris Nighttime Soap: Critics Pan New Season—Could a Bobby Ewing "It Was All a Dream" Plot Twist Be In the Works?

Tim Cavanaugh | April 11, 2006

When we last checked in with Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), the villainess of Bush v. Gore was enduring more perils than Pauline in her race for the U.S. Senate. Since then, things have gotten even worse: She's fired her campaign team (again!). She's leaking (staffers) faster than the Exxon Valdez. She's fallen under the sway of charismatic cult leader "Dr. Dale" Burroughs of the Biblical Heritage Institute. She's not only paranoid but surrounded by secret, scheming enemies.

It's all become too much for Republican bluestockings, who like a little more decorum in their campaign debacles. The Lakeland Ledger sniffs that Harris should cancel this show for the good of Florida voters, who need to know if Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson can prove himself "against a candidate who doesn't carry the kind of baggage that Harris does." The Miss Prisms over at National Review base the same advice on nakedly (and predictably) party grounds: "It is now imperative for Harris to [drop out], for the good of the party she has served so loyally."

Harris is rapidly becoming the Republican Howard Dean: a candidate the party can't stomach because she actually stands for all the stuff they believe in. In the 2004 Senate race, the GOP persuaded her to stay out, but what can the party promise her in 2006, other than more advice about being "realistic"? What good is the Republicans' realism for Harris anyway, when it will just lead to more reasonable stabs in the back in the future? Everybody with a sense of fairness, not to mention anybody who appreciates camp value in politics, should be wishing Harris a glorious moonshot of a campaign. If the Florida GOP and the Bushes don't have as much balls as Katherine Harris, that's their problem, not hers. Let the dragon lady roar!

Comments

|4.11.06 @ 9:33PM|#

"I always thought there was a heavy helping of misogyny (which I realize I've engaged in in the previous paragraph) in the attacks on Harris' physical appearance ..." (Tim Cavanaugh, not so very long ago)

OK, Tim, now you're up to 4 paragraphs of heavy misogyny. Let's keep it coming!

|4.11.06 @ 9:51PM|#

i live in Katherine Harris' district and I challenge ANYONE to post one thing that she has done for her constituents of Sarasota county. ANYTHING!

|4.11.06 @ 10:16PM|#

Get the crazy aunt back in the attic before everyone finds out what we believe in!

|4.11.06 @ 11:02PM|#

"a candidate the party can't stomach because she actually stands for all the stuff they believe in."
Great line, Tim. I always thought the same about Alan Keyes....written about so brilliantly by our own P. Bagge, under Tim's editorial tutelege at Suck, at http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/05/05/

|4.11.06 @ 11:25PM|#

So here's my question (again): why do libertarians support the Republican party? I know they all don't, but why do any? One more question--my ignorance of libertarianism is wide and deep: since libertarians want a minimal state or none at all, what's the libertarian position on democracy? Democracy seems pretty tied to the idea of a political state, no? Thanks for your indulgence.

|4.12.06 @ 2:27AM|#

Barry goldwater. goldwater is the missing link between us humans and those ape repubs.

Plus reagan spoke a good libertarian game. So did the repub revolution 12 years ago.

Plus Ron Paul, 'republican' from texas, ran for pres under the LIbertarian ticket. ANd he votes pretty libertarian.

As of late, I'm not sure why anyone would. Holing up detainees w/o trial aint exactly libertarian. Ditto to warrantless anything. And spending loads of cash on entitlement nonsense.

As for democracy, I remember telling someone I hewed libertarian, and they called me an anarchist, which I guess is a fallacy about libertarianism. Libertarianism favors democracy, because libertarians enjoy choice. I'm sure some will, but most libertarians would probably recognize the importance of armed forces, and other government services. Plus, the market so many of us get hard over, its just democracy with dollars.

Of course this is just my view.

|4.12.06 @ 6:14AM|#

Well, Dan

I'm just a wishy-washy libertarian, so I can't say much to anwer your question, but anyway: I for one do in some measure take what you might call the "least dangerous party" view, and I think that other libertarians, even more hardcore ones, do as well.

If most libertarians thought that the government really was likely to ban abortion (libertarians may in theory be pro-life, but most of the ones I know are pretty firmly pro-choice) or send homosexuals to jail, then they might well vote Democrat to prevent that. Likewise, if they thought the Democrats would decriminalize drugs and the Republicans wouldn't, then they might vote for the Democrats, too. But right now, they believe that the Republican errors (for instance on matters such as sexual practices or abortion) aren't that likely to be implemented into law; but they think the equally serious Democratic errors -- on matters such as taxes, economic liberty, gun rights, the government-run school monopoly, and so on -- are much more likely to be implemented into law. Therefore, right now, the Democrats seem to many (though not all) libertarians to be more dangerous to libertarian ideals than Republicans are. This is not a perfect solution, of course: We'd prefer to vote for candidates who will implement all our views on all matters. But in the absence of such candidates (remember, I stress will implement, which means they have to get elected), we make the choices that we think will best approximate our preferences, risky as these might be.

|4.12.06 @ 8:00AM|#

Well, Eugene, enjoy your attachment to that party. When they fail again, as they always do, you will be only further marginalized.

You Libers get all up in arms about "school choice," (psst - you have a choice already...) because you lack the sense to understand why universal education is vital to all of our success (The Men's Warehouse - "an educated consumer is our best customer").

You get fired up about "gun control" (psst - has anyone really restricted you from getting a gun? No? THEN GROW UP!), when all anyone wants is for the owners, makers and distributors to own up to their responsibility for the disposition of their guns.

You get loony about taxes (psst - every single GOP administration and majority has run up debt faster than they could pay for it and left the dems to clean up with painful taxes - oh, how soon we forget...), yet have no answer for the fact the growth in America was better than ever when the top bracket was 70-friggin-%.

And now you have a GOP that is Theocratic and Omnipresent and Warlike and STILL you libers can't get it through your heads that your real, tangible, day-to-day freedoms are far better protected by the dems - or AT LEAST a split ticket.

Amazing.

JMJ

MP|4.12.06 @ 8:32AM|#

i live in Katherine Harris' district and I challenge ANYONE to post one thing that she has done for her constituents of Sarasota county. ANYTHING!

Because clearly, a representative is not doing their job unless they are bringing home the pork.

|4.12.06 @ 8:53AM|#

Actually, I think libertarianism is neutral as far as democracy is concerned. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictator when unrestrained. All the problems with big govt and court-sanctioned violations of the BoR -- Social Security, the War on Drugs, public school monopoly -- have been produced despite (and in some cases, because of) a democratic system.

I don't know about you, but I would far prefer that the US be ruled by an unelected monarch-for-life who reliably respected the right of people to be left alone unless they're violating someone's rights, than to deal with 535 democratically-elected wannabe tyrants fighting about who gets to spend my money and control my life.

|4.12.06 @ 9:00AM|#

Excellent point, MP

JMJ

|4.12.06 @ 9:50AM|#

When I read about loonies like this, I think, "must be Florida." Sure enough.

What is wrong with your state, guys? Your politicals are all -- and I say this as a Massachusetts resident -- pretty fucked up.

|4.12.06 @ 10:03AM|#

Comparing Harris with Dean is a little unfair. Dean did walk away from his doomed campaign and scored himself a most excellent DNC chairmanship, which is more than Kerry got out of the campaign season.

Dean's reputation for craziness rests entirely on an ill-considered war-whoop he gave on tv to rally his disheartened staffers. Harris' reputation for double-dealing partisanship over constitutional responsibility stretches back to the 2000 election, and her street cred for bad craziness is something she's earning today and every day, 24/7.

Even Joan of Arc only heard angels talking to her, not the Big Cheese himself. Lunatics had their feet on the ground in those days.

|4.12.06 @ 11:08AM|#

"And now you have a GOP that is Theocratic and Omnipresent and Warlike and STILL you libers can't get it through your heads that your real, tangible, day-to-day freedoms are far better protected by the dems - or AT LEAST a split ticket. Amazing. JMJ"

Jersey, sweetie, the only thing amazing is that you don't realize it's folks like you -- unsufferable bossy, know-it-all, holier-than-thou, bleeding-heart asshats -- who make the Donkey Party so damned unelectable to us 'libers'. We are well aware that the Repubs suck -- but the Dems simply suck bigger time.

As to emetics, nothing compares to you.

|4.12.06 @ 1:11PM|#

But right now, they believe that the Republican errors (for instance on matters such as sexual practices or abortion) aren't that likely to be implemented into law

I'm sorry, but anyone with half a brain can not really believe that. South Dakota, anyone? The amending of countless state constitutions to ban gays from entering into the contract of marriage? The refusal of GOP appointed FDA members to refuse to allow non-prescription morning after pill or RU-486?

Any libertarian who states that they are willing to support the GOP over the Dems because they don't think they will actually try implement their agenda is a liar or a fool.

It has always seemed to me, and I may be wrong, that the real reasons libertarian avoid the Democratic party is much more self-serving (and I dont mean that in a negative/judgemental way): Gun Control and taxes.

Although the gun control wing of the democratic party is on life support outside of major urabn areas, I don't think libertarians trust dems -- even dems who are NRA members -- to protect the 2nd amendment.

|4.12.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Don't forget her support for Rabbi Abe Hardoon's blessed Celestial Drops as citrus canker prevention.

|4.12.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Grant it's not just the politicos. People in Florida are insane.

|4.12.06 @ 4:00PM|#

I would venture to say that a much smaller percentage of libertarians vote Republican now than at any time since the term "libertarian" was coined. I'm a classic example of a guy who used to identify myself as a "libertarian Republican" but is increasingly leaving off the second word of that description as oxymoronic.

|4.14.06 @ 9:25AM|#

I think Katherine Harris should definitely win in November,she will definitely represent the state of florida to the highest and she will make a fine,first-class senator. She truly is a wonderful person,so if you want a better state. I encourage everyone in Florida to vote for the best vote for our own Florida girl Katherine Harris it's simply the best choice!