 |
| Rick Scott |
Florida -- it's the state that seems to set the benchmark for political and social dysfunction in the nation.
From hanging chads to voter roll grabs to face eating drug addicts, working for the Florida Tourist Board must be the loneliest job in America.
It's governor is Rick Scott, a Tea Party Republican who sank more than $73 million of his own money into his election. Not surprisingly it was the most expensive gubernatorial campaign in Florida's history.
If you're willing to invest that kind of money into your own campaign shouldn't voters be a little suspicious of you?
Not in Florida. Republicans hold a two-thirds majority in the Florida Senate and in the Florida House of Representatives. The Republican National Convention will be held in Tampa, Florida.
Florida apparently loves super rich Republicans. Sadly, the romance is one way. Well, if you're not fabulously wealthy, that is.
In April, in the middle of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Scott used a veto to cut funding to the state’s rape crisis centers. The state legislature had approved $1.5 million so that the centers could continue to serve the approximately 700,000 women in Florida who’ve been victims of rape.
But Scott decided that the .002 percent slated for the crisis centers was too much. He vetoed the funds, alongside $141 million in other cuts including a psychiatric medicine program for the poor, the Family Care Center of Broward County, Girls Incorporated of Sarasota County, and a state settlement for child welfare case managers who were owed overtime.
In other words, he cut funding to rape victims, the poor, the mentally ill, and children and professionals who care for children; he vetoed the kind of programs that prevent America from becoming a Third World country that leaves its weakest members to languish.
As this election and the last decade have made clear, it's never a terrific idea to entrust your government to billionaires.
But Scott is only getting started. Next on his scorched earth agenda is Florida's voting rolls.
On Monday Scott's administration's defied a federal warning against purging suspected non-citizens from state voting rolls. Scott has denied that the effort is meant to target minorities who will likely vote Democratic, but well he would, wouldn't he?
The Miami Herald cited the statistics behind critics' concerns: "About 58% of those flagged as potential non-citizens are Hispanics, Florida’s largest ethnic immigrant population. Hispanics make up 13% of the overall 11.3 million active registered voters."
That sounds a lot like racial profiling to me. But Scott avows it isn't. On Monday he told reporters the timing had nothing to do with the campaign season.
"We need to have fair elections. When you go out to vote, you want to make sure that the other individuals that are voting have a right to vote. That’s what I care about. If you’re a candidate, you want to make sure that the people that vote in your election are people who have a right to vote. So my focus is in making sure that our state has fair elections," he told the Orlando Sentinel.
Trust the billionaire in the Brooks Brothers suit. I don't.
This is a candidate who will take away your vote to protect it. That way he can scrub the votes of minorities who don't see things his way. But what's a little disenfranchisement if the right candidate wins?
This week I read with interest that Mitt Romney is building another new mansion in California. He's hired his own lobbyist to push his plans through the approval process because frankly he can. At his proposed California beach mansion, each of the cars will have their own separate elevator. This is the man the GOP believes feels your pain.
If you believe that it's all an innocent coincidence that the majority of those targeted by Scott for voter purges are black and Hispanic, then perhaps you should have your own right to vote purged.
Vote purge campaigns led by Republicans have focused on the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and New Mexico. Numbers count in close elections.
The intense focus by America's super rich on ensuring that their candidate win at all costs is telling us a story in itself.
35 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
corection of premise, tea party rose organically to expose the government stay in its bounds as stated by the U.S. constitution.
BrianO | Jun 13, 2012, 03:14 PM EDT
Thank the anarchists and hopeless all you want, call the kettle black all you wish, but normal people can see the occupy rabble for what they are
eiriamach | Jun 13, 2012, 08:38 AM EDT
McNamara31, thanks for that background info on Tea Party. It's useful information that tells us plenty!
McNamara31 | Jun 12, 2012, 05:39 PM EDT
BrianO...The real difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St is that one was real and the other manufactured. One started with real life college students and unemployed youth the other by Freedom Works. Tea Party events were organized (by professionals) and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taking lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, whose group FreedomWorks helped coordinates Tea Party rallies across the country. A succession of Republican Party insiders and money guys make up the guts of FreedomWorks: Its key members include billionaire Steve Forbes and former Republican National Committee senior economist Matt Kibbe. Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, Freedom Works had lobbied on behalf of corporations against regulation. The organization's sights were set in the wake of a economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks — which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife — had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform. Joining them was, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the billionaire David Koch, who’s Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in America. He also has a major stake in pushing for deregulation, as his companies have been fined multiple times by the government, including a 1999 case in which Koch Industries was held to have stolen oil from federal lands, lying about oil purchases some 24,000 times.
BrianO | Jun 11, 2012, 03:37 PM EDT
Mac31, When the tea party had their event in Boston, they were required to pay for a permit, hire a police detail,finish by a certain time. When they dispersed the area was cleaner than when they got there. The Occupty group squatted, illegally set up a tent city caused millions of dollars of damage. the young idealistic ones (who I feel bad for) were stolen from and there were many complaints of molesting women. they defecated in public, and they really pissed off the local Bums who said they were bringing down the neighborhood. But i suppose this is your average liberal, right Mac.
BrianO | Jun 11, 2012, 03:28 PM EDT
what a concept spending your own money instead of other peoples, the dues is not voluntary it is mandatory, just like the mandatory volunteerism in the public schools these days, both are oxymorons. Total the amounts of the direct money against walker, the union contributions, the other democratic candidates who used the recall as their main point and attacked walker and you will find that both large institutions spent very equally, you will have to dig a little bit and it will take some effort, which I know is anti democrat. The fact is that if the public sector unions were not so out of control the recall would have won by a large margin, but they are out of control, evidenced by the amount of rank and file union members who voted to keep walker in as governor to get their fiscal house in order.
eiriamach | Jun 11, 2012, 12:49 PM EDT
BrianO, where is your news source for the claim "Oh and Eiriamach you might want to check those numbers again as the pinky ring leadership and walker forces spent equally"? I cannot find any factual evidence of equal spending. In any case, the Walker forces spent the Koch brothers' money, along with hefty contributions from three other billionaires, while the middle-class recall forces spent their own hard-earned money and union dues, as well as hitting the pavement and phone lines with the energy of the people. Cahir's question is still there, unanswered: "If you're willing to invest that kind of money into your own campaign shouldn't voters be a little suspicious of you?" Rick Scott spent $73 million of his own while Walker spent about half that sum-- of mostly other people's money. What do the other people expect in return-- just a "We Won" victory party? I cannot swallow that, and time will surely supply the answer . . . when it's too late to undo the harm.
McNamara31 | Jun 10, 2012, 04:37 PM EDT
BrianO says "Occupy wall street is your example of citizen protest, The dregs of society" Now... Would that be your "Fair and Balanced" opinion?
BrianO | Jun 08, 2012, 08:03 PM EDT
Occupy wall street is your example of citizen protest, The dregs of society who couldn't even co exist without stealing each other blind. The pendulum swings at times to the edge, the unions have over stepped their bounds and are now their own fiefdom, Wisconsin citizens many union workers voted to reign the unions in. Oh and Eiriamach you might want to check those numbers again as the pinky ring leadership and walker forces spent equally.
eiriamach | Jun 08, 2012, 04:25 PM EDT
The results of the bought-and-paid-for Wisconsin recall election suggest that BytheBay is right. Scott Walker spent $3,500,000 MORE than the unions and Dems who tried to recall him; he spent millions to keep a job that pays peanuts by comparison. The billionaires who bankrolled him and set him up with a legal defense fund to avoid criminal indictment (15 of his staff are under felony indictments) have something more in mind than just being nice to Scottie. The Occupy Wall Street protests were an early warning signal. State legislatures that are passing voter-suppression laws did not get the OWS message. When democratic processes are suppressed, people tend to remember Jefferson's advice: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and the right to CONSENT to/vote for government representatives], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... it is their right, it is their duty."
Bythebay | Jun 08, 2012, 09:25 AM EDT
It's now a case that the US Presidency is being bought by whoever the richest is or whoever can raise the most money. Certainly not democratic and incredible that so many so called Irish-American Nationalists in the US see nothing wrong with it.
IrishAndProud | Jun 07, 2012, 07:44 PM EDT
I should also note: the first of the two 'IrishAndProud' comments below this one (the one talking about Romney loving to be a billionaire) is not mine, though I must say the individual does think similar to me. I didn't know two different people could have the exact same on-screen name, on this site. Oh well, now we have two proudly Irish, proudly conservative individuals (in addition to the many other conservatives, posting here).
IrishAndProud | Jun 07, 2012, 03:10 PM EDT
hollabackgurl, you have truly got to be one of the most uncreative and unimaginative posters here (along with Cahir, himself)...nothing but repeating the same old class-envy, class-warfare bee s. Americans don't care about Romney's wealth; in fact they see that as an asset because he clearly knows how to raise money and grow business. If they DIDN'T see it that way, then Romney wouldn't be surging virtually everywhere and Obama sinking. Your guy's in deep trouble, kiddo - and your rather awkward and embarrassing bitterness about that (ditto with poor Cahir) is showing.
IrishAndProud | Jun 07, 2012, 01:32 PM EDT
I think Romney would love to be a billionaire as would I, it would mean I provided a product or service the rest of the world thought was important enough to pay their hard earned money for. Hollabackgurl you are wasting your talent trying to find some good in the communist utopian model it only leads to statism and dictatorship. Time you start a business and do with the profits what you choose.
hollabackgurl | Jun 07, 2012, 01:03 PM EDT
$73 million dollars is a lot to spend on an election if you're not expecting a handsome return on the investment, isn't it? I'm just saying. Billionaire GOP plutocrats like Romney aren't selfless patriots working for the betterment of the nation, they're exactly the people the Founding Fathers warned us against.
Bythebay | Jun 07, 2012, 11:12 AM EDT
Florida's voters were disenfranchised in 2000 when people weren't allowed to vote who were eligible to and tried to and when ballots weren't counted when they should have been. It resulted in Bush being elected US President and starting an illegal war which is still ongoing. Florida has a history of disenfranchising voters.
bob Gammell | Jun 07, 2012, 10:21 AM EDT
to: cahir O'Doherty. Boy o Boy, you sure know how to write a mess of lies and make it sound like the golden truth? I know you like to be called a liberal,and lies are ok, but in fact your a Communist and lying about facts is no longer tolerable, so find a real job like cleaning horse stalls, Your pretty good at it.
BrianO | Jun 07, 2012, 10:08 AM EDT
ACORN, do I need to say more.
McNamara31 | Jun 07, 2012, 09:37 AM EDT
When in doubt...they play dirty....Back in 2000, 12,000 eligible voters – a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush’s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore – were "wrongly identified" as convicted felons and purged from the voting rolls in Florida. The Presidents brother Jeb Bush attempted a repeat performance in 2004 to help his brother win reelection but was forced to back off in the face of a public outcry. So with another close election on the horizen in Florida Republicans have returned to their dirty tricks once again.
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 07:48 PM EDT
we agree on 99% of the issue, my guess is the veteran who won the bronze star is the last person a governor would want to inconvenience, conversely my guess only, The veteran who fought for his country would want those that vote in it to be citizens. Not seeing your veteran referenced in this story I started reading other articles and it seems that the federal homeland security office has been asked to verify and has not been cooperative with the state agencies. If they delay long enough this would nullify the states effort and allow non citizens to vote.
IrishAndProud | Jun 06, 2012, 07:35 PM EDT
I have to show my driver's license every time I vote (I even had to go back for it, once) and I have no problem with that at all. This way, only legal residents can vote -- which is a right of legal residents only, which the aforementioned WW2 vet fought for. Voting is not a right to be given to just anybody; only legal citizens have it. To just let anyone else vote would be to SPIT on the vets who fought in our wars. There is no logical argument against this.
eiriamach | Jun 06, 2012, 05:49 PM EDT
Actually, BrianO, I don't care who is corrupt and who is pure, as long as no one who is eligible is barred from voting. It hurts my sense of democratic fair play to think that the WW II vet who won the Bronze star for bravery at the Battle of the Bulge is required to prove his citizenship. I believe, though I can't claim to know, that it would be quite possible for Rick Scott's assistants to check out the citizenship status of all the people on the list via Motor Vehicle Registrations, Social Security Admin, federal Immigration, and birth records (on the basis of birth dates/places entered on other records). If there is reason to suspect a significant amount of voter fraud, government has an obligation to get the evidence before taking punitive action against people. I'm innocent until there's evidence to the contrary, and once I meet eligibility criteria and am registered, I should not have to prove my eligibility again. Fair is Fair. And if IC needs a proofreader, I could be available. Thanks for the recommendation!
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 02:54 PM EDT
First off eiriamach you should be the proofreader for IC. Second either someone is legal or not, they are citizens or not, it matters not if they have lived their entire lives as non citizens in a country they can not be allowed the vote unless they are citizens. Third cahir assumes that scott is corrupt and only eric holder is pure, people are allowed their opinions, this is a state issue and scott is the governor of the state.
eiriamach | Jun 06, 2012, 02:07 PM EDT
Florida would be better off with dead people voting than the voters who elected Mr. Scott! Seriously, this isn't about changing the requirements for registering to vote, and it isn't about bringing a photo ID to the polling place to prove you're not a dead person; it's about deleting names from the lists of those who have already met the eligibility requirements for voting and who have been voting, some for many years. We don't change the rules of the game after we've begun to play.
PhlutiePhan | Jun 06, 2012, 01:15 PM EDT
Let's look at this from the other side of the fishbowl. There are rules on eligibility for voters. The Democrats use the Cook County method of the dead voting at least twice. The proper thing is look at the rolls and act accordingly. Governor Scott may be out to eliminate those who are eligible. However, there has to be common sense. Voters should also have to produce an i.d. Democrats have an agenda just as Republicans do. The voting boards are under the control of the Secretary of State. He may be Republican but he wsa selected by the voters. The Department of Justice and Eric Holder are hanging out behind the woodshed. Liberals say that the Supreme Court is biased. When will it all end? There are rules and you go by them even if the legislature is controlled by Republicans. They were elected. Read it and weep. You just cannot have dead people voting.
eiriamach | Jun 06, 2012, 12:58 PM EDT
Btw, what's the name of Florida's governor-- Scott King or Rick Scott? Isn't naming him "King" in the article's title a little premature?
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 12:57 PM EDT
Federal officials to deem who is a citizen of Florida? I wouldn't go down the road of voter fraud, do we remember Acorn, the new black panthers, non counting of deployed soldiers. Regardless of this tangent argument if I was targeted as being an illegal alien and it was not so, I would go to my town hall and resolve the problem. If the state purges all non citizens from the 2700 who received letters then the voting process would be more accurate. The only problem I see is it doesn't go far enough and I agree that all that vote should be citizens, maybe a voter ID with a picture, obtained with a birth certificate or proof of citizenship.
eiriamach | Jun 06, 2012, 12:11 PM EDT
Sorry, BrianO, but the facts of this case are too clear already. IF Florida voting officials had any EVIDENCE that illegal immigrants are registered to vote, wouldn't they be legally bound to do more than just purge them from voting lists? Let the federal immigration officers handle it! If the state purges only one-fifth of the 2,700 who have received letters demanding that they prove they're citizens, more than 537 votes are lost, and that's the number of votes that decided the 2000 election in favor of Bush-- enough to "fix" an election in Florida. "Stinking fish!" I say.
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 11:16 AM EDT
it is a little hard to disseminate the facts as they are surrounded by cahirs assumptions and accusations. You would have to know what the criteria for making the list was, maybe a news reporter could find that out and get back to Cahir.
eiriamach | Jun 06, 2012, 10:54 AM EDT
Why does nearly everyone ASSUME that the people on the purge list are not citizens? A World War II veteran in his nineties is on that list. Are you assuming that anyone with a Hispanic name is likely to be an illegal? Isn't that how racial profiling works? Are you throwing away the great cornerstone of American jurisprudence, "innocent until proven guilty"? It's one thing for the state to adopt stricter rules for voter registration, but when Florida deletes people who are already registered, state officials ASSUME they're guilty of fraud. The burden of proof is NOT on people who have registered according to the rules.
jamieLM | Jun 06, 2012, 10:46 AM EDT
One of the reasons for going through the process of obtaining citizenship is that it gives one the legal right to vote. Too bad that some non-citizens think it's ok to by-pass the process and vote anyway. That's called "illegal." Some of our politicians don't seem to have a problem with that as long as those illegal votes end up on ballots for them. I have to show a valid DL/ID for all kinds of reasons, so why shouldn't I have to show I have the legal right to vote? Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Shmrck5S | Jun 06, 2012, 10:03 AM EDT
There is a very simple way to thwart this despicable thug's heinous attempt to keep you from voting-be (or become) a legal citizen and register to vote. Wait...I guess that's what HE'S trying to get done. Never mind.
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 09:59 AM EDT
The editors of Irish Central must have mised something when the proofread the title of this piece. It should rea "Florida Governor Scott King's plan to disenfranchise non citizen minorities voters who are not allowed to vote because they are not citizens."
hollabackgurl | Jun 06, 2012, 09:49 AM EDT
The ability of billionaires to get average people to vote against their own interests is amazing.
BrianO | Jun 06, 2012, 09:31 AM EDT
Another in a series of biased bigoted views from a biased bigot, yawn, try to do some reporting for a change, very lazy. As to the voters in Florida, your problem is that the governor of the state is trying to get non citizens off the voter registration roles. How did they get on the roles to start with? And why is it a problem what ethnic background they have if they are not citizens? Any non citizen that is registered to vote and can be disqualified and taken off the roles is a good thing, it returns the power of the vote to the citizens of Florida.