The Florida Centrist

Commentary on the Central Platform in U.S. Politics

2011-03-12T09:43:00.001-08:00

The Central Platform exists as much as the Left and Right Platforms exist. However, Centrists are never allowed to articulate their views in the national media. Generally, the media only give the views of Democratic and Republican strategist and let them tell the views of the center as they perceive them to be.

The Democrats and Republicans can never articulate the Central Platform because they do not understand it. They fear it, so they make petty comments like “The center does not have a clear identity” or “The center swings from left to right depending on circumstance” or “The center is un-informed”.

The truth is far from that simple. The center is more complex and pragmatic and that is the reason the right and left cannot wrap their little ideological views around it. The center is dynamic and alive and the most stable foundation to build a political movement on top of.

Both the left and right fear the coming of the “Centrist” because they know that the center has always been the key to political victory.

.

Petition for High Speed Rail

2011-03-06T11:11:00.000-08:00

High speed rail is a proven method of transportation. Please sign this petition to help put High Speed Trains on track for America. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/gothicgreenhighspeed/

Please help spread the word. After signing the petition, please post this article to Facebook and tweet it on Twitter.

Here's more information about high speed rail in case you want to be informed instead of just guessing about whether or not it's a good idea. According to Wikipedia, High-speed rail has the advantage over automobiles in that it can accommodate more passengers at speeds far faster than those allowed by car in most countries. The lower limit for HSR (200 km/h, 125 mph) is substantially faster than the highest road speed limit in most countries. Ignoring the few countries without a general speed limit, the speed limit is rarely higher than 130 km/h (80 mph). For journeys that connect city centre to city centre, HSR's advantage is increased due to the lower speed limits (and frequent traffic jams) within most urban areas. Generally, the longer the journey, the better the time advantage of rail over road if going to the same destination.

Moreover, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, one track for each direction. A typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By way of contrast, theHighway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people,[48] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. Some passenger rail systems, such as the Tokaido Shinkansen line in Japan, have much higher ratios (with as many as 20,000 passengers per hour per direction). Congested roadways tend to be commuter – these carry fewer than 1.57 persons per vehicle (Washington State Department of Transportation, for instance, uses 1.2 persons per vehicle) during commute times. Congestion also causes the maximum throughput of a lane to decrease. (Source: Wikipedia)

Other resources include:

Midwest U.S. http://elpc.org/category/smart-transportation?gclid=CIq2z860uKcCFa1d7AodtzloAQ
California http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

U.S. High Speed Rail Association http://www.ushsr.com/
High Speed Rail Plan Map http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html
Federal Railroad Administration http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/31.shtml
Siemens High Speed Rail http://www.usa.siemens.com/entry/en/highspeedrail.htm?stc=usccc021828
Southeast High Speed Rail http://www.sehsr.org/
Shanghai Maglev Official Website http://www.smtdc.com/en/
The Pennsylvania Project High Speed Maglev http://www.maglevpa.com/
The Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project http://www.bwmaglev.com/
Transrapid-USA http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp
The Monorail Society http://www.monorails.org/

This petition for a Comprehensive High Speed Rail Network is sponsored by:

The Sustainable Transportation Project

High Speed Rail: A Boondoggle?

2011-03-04T10:39:00.000-08:00

Both Governor Rick Scott and Former Governor Jeb Bush called the plan for a high speed rail a boondoggle, but do you really know what a boondoggle is, other than a funny sounding word?

According to Webster’s Dictionary, a boondoggle means a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or nation.

One might call tax cuts for the wealthy or tax breaks for the big oil companies a boondoggle. Is the plan for a high speed rail a boondoggle?

In 2000 Florida voters did not think so. In fact they voted by majority in favor of the high speed rail, however, Jeb Bush led an attack against high speed rail so that it was repealed in 2004. Here are some facts that you may not know about the 2004 repeal campaign. First, it was based on misinformation. The ballot itself revealed the fact of misinformation. It only tells the voter about the short term economic impact of the rail. It never fairly stated the ecological benefits, the long term economic benefits, nor the cost of subsidized highways that would need to be expanded, widened, and maintained as an alternative to the high speed rail. In other words, a direct comparison of the two systems was never put on the ballot. The ballot was slanted to give voters a false impression about high speed rail.

Secondly, Universal Studios funded a campaign through the infamous ACORN to go out and canvass lower income neighborhoods and spread the misinformation that high speed rail would negatively impact them. In fact, Universal opposed the project because the planned line would have connected to Disney World before heading to Tampa. After that project was killed, Universal supported a high speed rail that would connect to Universal, but their original lack of foresight stalled high speed rail and other commuter rail projects which would have benefited Central Florida and other parts of Florida.

Despite the fact that Jeb Bush got in bed with Universal Studios and ACORN to kill high speed rail, approximately 40% of voters still showed support of high speed rail. The remaining voters that voted to repeal high speed rail did so for one of two reasons:
1) They were ideologically opposed to it regardless of its benefits.
2) They were duped by the Republicans, Universal, and ACORN.

It seems funny now that a far left wing group like ACORN would side with Jeb Bush, but the fact of the matter is they did it for money.

Any intelligent and reasonable person can see calling the high speed rail a boondoggle is just plain nonsense. High speed rail is a viable project that will provide transportation to commuters who do not like to drive. Tourists will use the rail just like they use the much slower buses and Amtrak now.

Go ahead Rick Scott and try to kill high speed rail. You will only be hurting Florida, the state you were elected to govern for the good of the people. History will prove you made the wrong decision, and that's a fact.

A Gallon of Gas and a Barrel of Oil

2011-02-27T13:44:00.001-08:00

The true cost of a gallon of gas is tied to the cost of a barrel of oil. As the price of a barrel of oil rises, the cost of a gallon of gas rises. However, when the cost of a barrel of oil declines, it never falls back to its original starting point, which means the cost of gas will only temporally fall. After a brief decline, the cost of a barrel of oil will spike again and the gas price will increase to meet the new spike.

The 2008 high price of a barrel of oil was $147.30, and the high price for a gallon of gas was $4. Then when the cost of a barrel of oil fell to $30.28, the price of a gallon of gas fell to $1.64. The cost of a barrel of oil traded between $20 - 30 in 2003 at which time the average cost of a gallon of gas was $1.64. However, the cost of a barrel of oil continued to rise to the previous mentioned 2008 levels. Both 2009 and 2010 prices rose in response to increased oil prices, and 2011 is only in its first quarter and prices have begun to rise. As of February 27, 2011, gas prices have already reached $3.38 a gallon and a barrel of oil is at $97.88. When a barrel of oil reaches $147 again, then what will the gas price be?

What does all of this mean to the average consumer? What does it means to future energy prices? Why are the oil prices in such rapid increases?

All of those questions are tied to the diminishing supply of crude oil. Oil is getting more difficult to extract, and the cost of refining it is rising. However, the U.S. government is still subsidizing oil companies while they reap huge profits.

Therefore, the future of oil and gas prices will see an ever increasing rate, the consumer will have to modify their habits to keep their costs down, and, ultimately, the true cost of oil use will have to be accounted for. The true cost will force rapid change or the entire collapse of the U.S. economy.

High Speed Rail and Other Transportation Choices

2011-02-26T12:28:00.000-08:00

According to MetroPlan Orlando, the 2030 LRTP was amended by the MetroPlan Orlando Board on November 10, 2010 to add the Orlando to Tampa high speed rail project. Because high speed rail will be built within existing right-of-way on Interstate 4, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that an amendment to MetroPlan Orlando's 2030 Long Range Transportation plan was necessary. Prior to board adoption, MetroPlan Orlando conducted a public hearing on the amendment and provided a summary of comments to the board.

High speed rail was not included in the 2030 Plan when it was originally adopted in August 2009 because it was not considered financially feasible at that time. Since then, federal funding has become available and the project is moving forward. Construction will be completed in phases and is expected to create approximately nine thousands jobs during peak construction. After the project is built, it is expected to provide 700-1000 permanent jobs working on operations and maintenance on the Orlando to Tampa line.

According to Myregion.org, through surveys, meetings, blogs, and other conversations, Central Florida’s residents, business leaders, and elected officials overwhelmingly embrace a future that is different than our current path. A future in which the Central Florida region is recognized as a world-class place to live, learn, work, and play. A future where people with diverse backgrounds and talents come together to enhance a global economy that rivals the greatest cities in the world. A future where the natural beauty and other amenities that are unique to our region are enjoyed by all. A future in which Central Florida consumes less land, preserves more precious environmental resources, creates more distinctive places to live in both rural and urban areas, and provides choices for how people travel.

I personally attended and participated in the meetings of Myregion.org as well as meetings in Winter Park by the citizens, and at all those meetings the majority of the people overwhelmingly supported more pedestrian/bicycle/public buses/rail options for commuting. Both traffic planners and citizens alike have discovered through simple observation that a policy of continued road widening and expansion will not solve traffic woes. Why do hard right wingers continue to bash freedom of transportation choices while they cling mindlessly to an auto-only approach to transportation? Are they attempting to force everyone to drive automobiles? Do they want to ban walking and bicycling? Do they wish to use the lest cost-effective approach to solving transportation problems? Do they have any solutions to fix the decaying and highly tax funded automobile transportation system?

Meanwhile, what are our other public officials doing? Are they getting out of cars and using other transportation options, or are they simply talking the talk and not walking the walk?

Here are the facts:
1) It costs money for all types of mechanized transportation systems.
2) All transportation systems should be compared on the basis of completely built systems. In other words, from start to finish and accounting for all direct and indirect costs, in today’s money, how much does each cost to build, maintain, and operate?
3) All systems should be compared on the basis of which is more easily maintained.

Americans need to wake up and find out the facts. Can the United States continue to fund automobiles, highways, bridges, overpasses, parking lots, fossil fuels, ethanol use, and all the accidents, traffic police, and related expenses? Or should Americans adopt a more reasonable policy of mixed transportation that expand freedoms of choice?

Governor Rick Scott: Unrealistic View of High Speed Rail

2011-02-22T11:51:00.001-08:00

Governor Rick Scott has an unrealistic view of the transportation trends in the present moment and those that will shape the future. First, it shows a total lack of foresight to kill high speed rail in Florida, because a large portion of the population supports rail-based travel and other public transportation options that free them from having to drive a car.

Secondly, gas prices are on the rise again, and ultimately gas will become too costly for frugal and reasonable commuters. Third, the majority of people oppose investing in more interstate and highway widening projects which only serve to increase sprawl and damage natural ecosystems. Fourth, worldwide trends show that public transportation is the fastest growing transportation market.

Fifth, over the long term, high speed rail and other mass transit options will pay for their selves while the cost of an automobile transportation economy will only wreck the economy. President Obama just bailed out the auto industry, the tax payers shoulder all the cost of road projects, and the big oil companies take tax breaks while they raise gas prices.

I don’t know where Governor Scott gets his math figures. It does not add up, because the auto-oil-road system is in decline, heavily subsidized, and still its failing to solve the transportation woes of the average commuter. Metro Orlando spends almost a billion dollars a year on transportation infrastructure and most of it goes to support road projects. None of that money accounts for the other indirect costs to average commuters, developers, and tax payers that support all the indirect expenses of a flawed system that is already overbuilt.

Governor Scott should also factor in the cost of parking lots to consumers, traffic police to monitor cars, fuel costs, automobile insurance, and car payments. And lastly, perhaps the Governor ought to consider that many people do not like to drive, don’t like all the ugly highways and parking lots invading our natural space of Florida, and the stench of car exhaust as well as the unending noise from millions of cars.

Test Your Elected Official: Green or Not?

2011-02-17T11:25:00.000-08:00

This analysis is used with the Formula of Sustainable Design and the following scoring system:

Each question has a possible score of 1 - 3 points.

a = 1

b = 2

c = 3

Answer all the questions, then add score together and compare to this scale:

20 = Basic Green

21 - 39 = Limited Green

40 - 59 = Non Green

60 = Anti Green

Question One:

On energy policy, supports:

a) Only renewable energy (solar, wind, water).

b) Any domestic energy.

c) Any energy.

Question Two:

On buildings/home standards, supports:

a) LEED/ENERGY STAR requirements.

b) Minimal requirements.

c) No requirements.

Question Three:

On trade, supports:

a) True Resource Efficiency Model.

b) Any domestic trade.

c) Ant type of trade.

Question Four:

On overall transportation policy, supports:

a) Mixed use transportation which includes walkable cities, rails, bicycles, buses, and small personal electric vehicles.

b) Any type of transportation.

c) Primarily automobile oriented.

Question Five:

On road building, supports:

a) Limits to new construction.

b) Lax limits to road construction.

c) No limits to new roads.

Question Six:

On High Speed Rails, Maglevs, and commuter rails, supports:

a) U.S. and regional networks.

b) Some limited building of rails.

c) No rails.

Question Seven:

On air travel, supports:

a) Reduced air travel and infrastructure.

b) Maintianing 2010 levels.

c) Increased air travel and infrastructure.

Question Eight:

On current transportation infrastructure, supports:

a) Redesigning and restoring infrastructure to be more sustainable via mixed use policies.

b) Minor repairs and upgrades to existing infrastructure.

c) No repairs or upgrades to infrastructure.

Question Nine:

On the automobile industry, supports:

a) No tax payer funding.

b) Limited funding to auto industry.

c) Complete funding to auto industry.

Question Ten:

On recycling, supports:

a) Recycling of all waste.

b) Limited recycling.

c) No recycling.

Question Eleven:

On logging, supports:

a) Sustainable forestry.

b) Any type of logging.

c) Only unsustainable forestry.

Question Twelve:

On overall material resource use, supports:

a) Closed loop system.

b) Partial closed loop and open system.

c) Open system.

Question Thirteen:

On manufacturing, supports:

a) Regional manufacturing.

b) Limited domestic manufacturing.

c) No domestic manufacturing.

Question Fourteen:

On water use, supports:

a) The Polybranched Feed/Drain System.

b) Some water conservation methods.

c) No conservation.

Question Fifteen:

On mining, supports:

a) Extremely limited mining.

b) Limited mining regulations.

c) No regulations.

Question Sixteen:

On oil drilling, supports:

a) Eliminating oil drilling and exploration.

b) Limits to oil drilling and exploration.

c) No limits to oil drilling and exploration.

Question Seventeen:

On species conservation, supports:

a) Extensive conservation efforts.

b) Limited conservation.

c) No conservation.

Question Eighteen:

On ecosystem preservation, supports:

a) Extensive conservation efforts.

b) Limited conservation efforts.

c) No conservation.

Question Nineteen:

On living wages, supports:

a) A living wage for all workers.

b) Some workers entitled to living wage.

c) No living wage.

Question Twenty:

On farming and food production, supports:

a) Only organic farming.

b) Any type of farming.

c) Only factory farming.

Political Discourse

2011-02-17T11:19:00.001-08:00

The government is in disarray, so I want to start a political discussion based on these questions:

On issues, can we find view points which are not liberal or conservative or some variation of the two? I mean, can we find solutions outside of the far right, the far left and the compromises between the two? Is it possible that sometimes the Democrats are correct and some times the Republicans are correct? Is it also possible that they both can be wrong on some issues? Is it possible that sometimes a compromise between the two is suitable and sometimes neither party nor a compromise will solve the dilemma?

This is what I'm trying to find out... can we think and act without a particular party affiliation? Maybe practical politics should out weigh ideological politics. Are you willing to find out that maybe the political system is out dated and needs to be overthrown? Would the founding fathers of the U.S. recognize the political beast we have today as their creation? Would they advocate something different than the Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Tea Party?

Are you willing to dismiss the parties until you can find out by the facts and not the rhetoric? Are you willing to take a cold hard look at the politicians and the party advocates and question them on the facts rather than the ideology? Are you willing to consider that the baby boomers are out of touch with the present situation? Are you willing to consider the time has come for a new generation of leadership needs to arise?

Political Concepts and the People's Rights

2011-02-17T11:18:00.000-08:00

Political theorists recognize that governments are concepts of the human will and intellect. They exist to serve society's needs and desires for improvement. Therefore, those concepts must evolve to meet the demands of the times.

Political concepts of the People:
1) A person's geographic place of birth does not limit or determine a person's political destiny.
2) Political entities, including states, organizations and parties exist to serve the people.
3) All political entities are subject to revision, reform or complete change by the people.
4) Citizenship is a concept and is subject to change by the person not by the government.
5) A person determines their allegiance to a political entity rather than their place of birth or dwelling place.
6) A person is not bound by the government or their agreements with other governments.
7) The people have authority over the government and may dismantle it at will.
8) Every person has equal political power.

The Centrist's Strategy

2011-02-17T11:16:00.001-08:00

The centrist’s political strategy takes advantage of the primary weakness of the two party system. The primary weakness is polarization by the left and right. The basic situation can be assessed by observing the positions of parties and voters.

As far as parties are concerned; The Democrats occupy the position from center to far left. The Republicans occupy the position from center to far right. Independents occupy the position from mid left to mid right. Various third parties occupy positions from far left to far right, depending on their specific ideology.

As far as voters are concerned; the far left is composed of ultra liberals, communist, socialist and related views. The far right is composed of ultra conservatives, extreme examples of free market, and religious radicals. Numerically speaking, both the far left and far right are small compared to the vast majority of the center.

Polarization is a process that the far left and far right have imposed on the majority, and the first step to stopping it is to understand it. It is fairly simple to understand. The polarization of politics occurs when one side takes a stance on an issue, and then the other side takes the complete opposite stance to distinguish its self from the other party. The Republicans and Democrats do this all the time. This, then, sets a precedence which both the Independents and other Third Parties fall right in line with.

For example, under the polarizing method the Democrats state a position on an issue. Then the Republicans take the complete opposite. Next, the Independents have three choices:
1) Side with the Democrats.
2) Side with the Republicans.
3) Make a compromise between the two.
Finally, the other third parties take their cue from their position they occupy along the political line from left to right. In other words, a third party on the far left will take the Democrats view to the most extreme.

The Polarizing Strategy leaves little room for creative problem solving or fresh consideration of issues. It makes debates over issues very narrow minded and excludes many practical ways to resolve issues and conflicts.

The centrist approach differs by non-polarized politics and the willingness to concede to any party on a particular issue if they have the superior solution. However, the centrist will stand firm whenever it has the best method or solution to an issue. The centrist will not support endless debates or pass and repeal legislation tactics. This strategy will strengthen the center by enabling voters to coalesce around mutually conceived political policies.

A New Tax Code

2011-02-17T11:15:00.000-08:00

The current tax system and the I.R.S. contain too many flaws. The chief flaws are:
1) Too much taxation.
2) Too many types of taxes.
3) Tax structure and filing system is unwieldy, too complex, and too costly.
4) Everyone is treated differently according to the tax code which leads to unfair assessments by the I.R.S.
5) Too many loopholes for corporations to evade taxes or reduce their taxation while the people pay high income, property, and sales taxes.

Various alternatives have been proposed to fix the system and each of those have their own set of problems. I will not waste time elaborating those here. The only sound, durable and simple system is a straight 10% tax plan. This plan has these elements:
1) All wage earners, regardless if they are a company or person, is treated exactly the same. In other words, everyone pays 10% of all gross income, nothing more and nothing less.
2) No sales or property taxes.
3) No need for the I.R.S., because the code is simplified, and therefore, it does not require a huge organization to administrate it.
4) No need to pay taxes and then file at tax time. Taxes are paid once and you are done with it.
5) The government cannot raise or create new taxes. The government must then learn to be frugal with what it has, or if it wants to raise additional revenues, then it has to figure out how to help it citizens earn extra gross income.

Goals of the Centrist

2011-02-17T11:13:00.001-08:00

Goals of the Centrist:
1) To express sustainable/green political policies.
2) To express new political concepts.
3) To refine old political concepts.
4) To educate the general reader.
5) To create a cell of political leaders active in spreading sustainable concepts.
6) To elect a body of representatives in accord with sustainable concepts.
7) To drive both Republicans and Democrats out of office.
8) To create an international state encompassing North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.

Simplify Political Campaigns

2011-02-17T11:05:00.001-08:00

U.S. campaigns are too complex and unfair for everyone to get a chance to serve in office. Campaigns are corrupt and driven by special interests. All these things can be changed by simplifying campaigns.

These are the major goals:

1) Reducing campaign costs.

2) Eliminate misinformation.

3) Simplify who can be a candidate and how they register.

4) Restrict the type of ads that can be run.

Candidates should not play the media. They should be required to announce two years in advance if they are going to run for office. This would give all voters plenty of time to find out more about the person. Also, it will eliminate all the speculation and media hype about whether or not someone is planning to run. This will make politicians more sober and thoughtful about the future, which is an important quality of a lawmaker.

A simple filing system online should be used to register to run for office. Each person running for office will have a free website that they can easily use to display their positions and record on issues. All basic issues will be covered, and voters can pull up profiles and comparisons of each candidate. A voter can also create a voter profile and compare each candidate with their own positions on issues. If a voter is undecided, then they can read a candidates blog, audio feed or videos that are accessible via their profile.

The Long Term Results of the 2010 Florida Election

2010-11-19T12:06:00.000-08:00

The long term results of the 2010 elections in Florida have yet to be decided, but these facts have already played out:
1) Marco Rubio (Republican) ( www.marcorubio.com ) was elected by 2,645,743 votes out of a total of 5,338,749 total votes cast. That was a total of 48.89% of the total votes cast. 5,817,031 registered voters did not vote in the election, so the big fact is more people did not vote than voted.
2) Rick Scott (Republican) ( www.rickscottforflorida.com ) was elected by 2,619,335 votes for a total of 48.87% of the vote.

Neither of those two elected officials received an overwhelming majority of voter’s support from all registered voters. There was 11,155,780 registered voters in Florida as of 08/24/2010. In fact, Senate-elect Marco Rubio only received 23.71% voter support from all registered voters, and Governor-elect Rick Scott only received 23.47% voter support from all registered voters. Neither of those two elected officials received even 25% of all voters’ support. Did they win by a majority? Not by a long shot.

The fact is more people did not support them by either a vote against or by not voting at all. The big question is, “What does this mean?”

I think this means that the elected officials need to pay attention to all their constituents, because public opinion and the people’s will does not stop at the voting booth. The people who voted against those elected still have a voice, and if those who are elected fail to realize it, then they will suffer in the next election cycle.

The so called “political capital” that elected officials perceive they possess will be lost without sound fiscal and environmental policies that reflect the true nature of today’s politics. No politician, regardless if they are Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party, or other parties, can ignore the facts of the elections.

New Term Limits

2010-11-10T14:44:00.000-08:00

There are many reasons to limit the terms politicians can spend in office, but an overview of the chief reasons will suffice to make the point clear:

1) Eliminate lifetime politicians who maneuver for their self interest above the common good.

2) Ensure voters retain political power over the politicians.

3) Break up good old boy networks.

4) Introduce fresh thinking into the political process.

5) Engage younger adults.

6) Motivate politicians to act rather than debate.

The major problem of politicians who can move from office to office or remain in one position indefinitely is that they can manipulate the system. The system was originally conceived to create a fair and level playing field and to ensure the people were properly represented, but now politicians use bad political practices to get their way or, at least, prevent the other person from getting their way. These bad political practices are manifested as:

1) Endless debates.

2) Pass and repeal strategy.

3) Stalling by adding on to bills to prevent a vote from passing.

4) Polarizing an issue to prevent reasonable action.

Lifetime politicians stink of an oligarchy and are enemies of the people. Politicians should not be capable of serving more than a combined 16 years between all elected offices. The elimination of lifetime and long term politicians will return the power to the people. Anyone who opposes stricter term limits opposes democracy also.

Introduction to The Florida Centrist

2010-11-10T14:09:00.000-08:00

The Florida Centrist is an online political publication dedicated to Florida politics exclusively. The issues that concern Floridians should be covered by those people who actually reside in Florida. The Florida Centrist will be the central hub for several other blogs that focus on specific issues in Florida. Among these are:
1) The New Generation of Florida Politics: Politics for those 30 Years Old and Younger
2) Florida Green Conservatives
3) New Florida Liberals
4) Transportation Issues in Florida
5) Central Florida Politics
6) North Florida Politics
7) South Florida Politics