We’ve discussed at length the floor debate on two bills related to firearms from last Thursday. As we discussed Democratic Leader Perry Thurston offered a repeal to Stand Your Ground as an amendment to one of the bills, HB 89 on the floor. Historically even if members of the minority party plan to support a piece of legislation on the floor, they give the courtesy of the supporting a leadership amendment. That is if they are notified about such an amendment, and the caucus discusses it thoroughly.. The Sunshine State News’ Nancy Smith had an opinion column about the Thurston Amendment to HB 89 blindsiding Democrats who had worked on both the Stand Your Ground issue and that of the warning shot matter considering the controversial Marissa Alexander case.
In the last few days, we have tried to ascertain when the supporters of the bill in the Democratic caucus were made aware of Thurston’s desire to amend the legislation and force what amounted to an up or down vote on Stand Your Ground. It appears the members we have spoken to were either caught somewhat by surprise regarding the amendment completely or learned of it just shortly before the floor session began on Thursday March 20th.
Either way, Minority Leader Perry Thurston does not look good coming out of this. The leader knew he had several proponents of the bill in his caucus. While the intent of the Thurston amendment is something worth supporting, legislative courtesy also should mean that you do not surprise some of the members of your caucus with a potentially tricky vote like this.
The Minority Leader happens to be running for Attorney General in a Democratic Primary against an established candidate in former Deputy A.G. George Sheldon. While grandstanding on the floor is nothing new for potential statewide candidates (During the 1998 session when running for US Senate, Charlie Crist then a State Senator virtually made a spectator sport out of it, and Rod Smith in 2005 and 2006 wasn’t much different) it is problematic if it creates greater divisions within the caucus.
In this case several members have expressed to us the discomfort of being placed in a difficult position on this amendment without having a full caucus vetting of whether this was the right vehicle to make this statement regarding. Though in fairness, it could be claimed by Leader Thurston that he had very little in the way of potential germane pieces of legislation to attach this repealer amendment to coming to the floor in the near future.
This having been said, given the support of much of the caucus for HB 89, maybe Thurston choose the wrong vehicle and the wrong posture in pushing this amendment. We spoke the other day about Rep. Darryl Rouson’s potential motivation for opposing the amendment offered to HB 89. However, some other Democratic members not necessarily aligned with Rouson have complained about the way the bill was handled in the caucus.
Again, offering a repeal of Stand Your Ground and getting Republicans on the record as opposing a repeal was a good maneuver. But the Democratic defections on the amendment we saw on Thursday may have had as much to do with the process than with the actual content of the proposal Thurston offered.
We would hope Leader Thurston will continue his efforts to weaken or repeal Stand Your Ground. But we also think it would be wise if he takes a different posture next time with his own members. A divided Democratic Caucus when already in a thirty seat minority is not ideal in anyone’s mind. Yet we sit here approaching the middle of the session with more and more divisions popping up within the party caucus, and not all of these divisions are based on ideology. In fact, we have found liberal members sympathetic with Rep. Rouson and more moderate members sympathetic with Leader Thurston.
The last thing the Democrats need is an all out factional battle within the ranks, especially one based more on personality than ideology. Hopefully with this in mind, the Thurston amendment and the ensuing ugliness is more of a one off than a developing trend.
The Florida Squeeze 
I agree with this post entirely. However the author who normally does not have any conflicts of interest unlike many others who write about politics doesn’t in this case.
KK Has a long-standing and well-documented relationship with leader Thurston’s opponent for Atty. Gen. Don’t believe me? Look up the campaign-finance reports from George Sheldon’s previous run for Atty. Gen. and see who got paid the most money. It was an individual whose name is exactly the same as the author of this piece.
LikeLike
I am not trying to impugn the author. He’s great normally. I’ll take him over Peter Schorsch any day. But this is one potential conflict. Anytime Sheldon runs it is a potential conflict for KK.
LikeLike
The post was pretty gentle on Thurston and we did not speak with Mr. Sheldon on this issue. There are members that are upset with the way this went down, that’s all. It didn’t do the cause of caucus cohesion any favors, is all we’re saying. There are higher, worthier causes to be sure but K’s point here is a reasonable one and was not motivated by his support for George in the AG race.
LikeLike
I have never pretended I don’t have a close relationship with George Sheldon or that I do not support him for AG again this time. However, it has not in any way clouded my view of the Democratic Caucus. For the record George Sheldon declared his candidacy in October and I don’t think until this article I have written anything that can be even remotely construed as negative about Leader Thurston. I have sat on conference calls and in on meetings related to that campaign but have not mixed the two at all.
LikeLike
I like the previous post on the subject better than this one. It is unfortunate that nobody mentions that Katie Edwards was a prime cosponsor of the bills also does not participate in caucus meetings so she wouldn’t know about an amendment offered anyway.
As for Alan Williams he’s just an attention whore. All he wants is attention. He is jealous someone else is leader and is trying to upstage him.
LikeLike
For the record Representative Edwards does participate in caucus meetings. The Representative has told me this when I contacted her about the matter and it has been confirmed by other members of the caucus to me.
LikeLike
Good piece. Redemption for the other day.
LikeLike
We are always sniveling and complaining.
LikeLike
My point being the views of Alan Williams who as stated above is a publicity hound with no political base in Tallahassee or Katie Edwards a Republican lite or a jilted angry Darryl Rouson cannot guide the caucus. The leader guides the caucus and must be followed.
LikeLike
Leadership also has obligations on how you treat members of your caucus. It is a two way street.
LikeLike
Thurston I guarantee had his reasons for this. Too many whiny D members get butthurt about stupid s***.
LikeLike
All Democrats should have supported efforts to repeal Stand Your Ground from Day 1. There’s no excuse for not trying to repeal it. None.
LikeLike
[…] this week we discussed the issue of Minority Leader Perry Thurston’s amendment to HB 89 regarding the”Stand Your Ground” law in Florida. The divisions in the caucus that were […]
LikeLike