Posted on 08/08/2010 12:41:05 PM PDT by Ooh-Ah
'The brazen nature of this administration is undermining the basic rule of law, the confidence of the public, and taking away states' authority—creating an ever stronger federal government. My role is to make clear we're not going to put up with this."
So says Bill McCollum, Florida's attorney general, now vying to be governor of the Sunshine State. It wasn't so very long ago that the job of a Republican governor was to promise lower spending, policies to encourage job growth, freedom in education, tax relief.
In the age of Obama, Republican governors and candidates are redefining their role to become defenders in chief against an overweening federal government that is siphoning away states' power and crushing them with new costs.
That's why 20 states are suing for the constitutional overthrow of ObamaCare. It's why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal threw in with a lawsuit to kill the federal drilling moratorium. It's why Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is challenging federal immigration policies. It's why 18 governors in March signed a letter demanding the Senate protect their states against EPA climate rules.
McCollum is perhaps the brightest exale of this expansive shift in thinking. The flighty leadership of (formerly Republican) Gov. Charlie Crist, has, over the years, cast Mr. McCollum as a de facto head of his party's more principled wing. He was the most visible state politician, for instance, to oppose the stimulus bill and early on he warned Congress that its health bill was likely an unconstitutional affront to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The lawsuits and state laws against Obamacare are all well and good but in the end the people will have the final say as to who they will be governed! Obamacare is unconstitutional! The people are not bound to comply with an unconstitutional act regardless of action taken by the three branches!
DeathCare was designed as a genocide of the elderly and disabled. Their Death Panels will be determining who lives and who dies. Big Brother wants to play God!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wty7974IKg&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy.
The fact that Mr. McCollum is still swinging, despite being outspent 5 to 1, is partly due to his defense of Florida against Washington.McCollum v. ObamaCare--WSJ
What other type of leadership would you expect from a fag with a fake suntan?
Was McCollum for ObamaCare before he was against it? We still don’t know for sure. One issue does not make a good candidate.
Was McCollum against AZ SB1070 before he was against it? Yes.
McCollum is proposing behavior focused tax credits instead of across the board tax cuts for businesses. Scott is proposing to eliminate State Income Tax for businesses over 7 years.
McCollum proposes to create more beurocracies to address Florida’s problems rather than cutting back on government spending.
If McCollum is such a great conservative, why did he run such a McCain 2008 style race against SuperRINO Martinez for the Senate? That certainly worked for us now didn’t it?
Before April he totally funded this effort, or did you as a good conservative not notice?
Because you had to qualify yourself for the ideals of Republican advancement, you left yourself wide open aas a classic seminar poster like the seminar callers who call shows like Rush to rail against conservative ideals.
You also start off with name calling with nothing but what looks like media and government to support your claims. Maybe a little "insight" would help to enlighten those who don't know the details and the rest of the story. Through his business, Rick Scott was also able to show his political vision about universal health care. He has spent millions of his own dollars to fight not only hillarycare, but obamacare as well. He was a private citizen who had the means to fight loudly and he did which brought more awareness to the faults of hillary/obamacare to the nation. Time magazine in 1996 noted Scott as one of the top 25 most influential people in America for showing how efficient free-market healthcare could be for country. However, many are concerned with the fact that his company, Columbia/HCA, was investigated(along with many other for-profit hospital corporations) by the fed for medicare fraud. It’s a fair question to ask and it even bothered me for quite some time. It had me on the fence between McCollum and Scott. I looked into it and it appears that Columbia/HCA (again, along with many other hospital corporations), according to the federal probe, failed to adhere to the Stark law of physician referrals which was expanded three times during Columbia/HCA’s buildup(from 1987-1997) with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the OBRA of 1993, and with some technical corrections with the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994. The Stark Law is named for Congressman Pete Stark. For those who do not know him, this is the same man that believes our “border is quite secure” and that “bigger debt means the wealthier we are.” He has also called the minutemen murderers and threatened to throw an interviewer out of a window. Needless to say the man is a complete nutjob. To sum up, the Stark rule is against Physicians referring patients to a medical facility in which he or she has a financial interest. So basically, if a physician sees a great financial opportunity in a medical facitiliy that does good work, they can either not invest or they can invest and send their patients to the competition. That makes alot of sense. Of course there are other allegations made against Columbia/HCA. Rick Scott wanted to fight these charges legally. If he assumed personal guilt, I doubt he would want to waste the time and money only to reach a settlement agreement if the evidence was that strong against his company. The other board members disagreed and Scott and Columbia/HCA parted ways. A few years after Rick Scott left, the company settled for 1.7 billion and out of over 285,000 employees and contractors there were how many whistle blowers to the fraud of Columbia/HCA? A grand total of 30. Some of the allegations have been confirmed to be true by the federal probe(these days you almost have to take that with a grain of salt) such as billing irregularities. Suppose these allegations are completely true. Then why would the federal authorities not personally investigate or question Rick Scott himself? I have come to two possible conclusions. First, it’s possible the federal probe was a tactic used by the government to embarrass and discredit the for-profit hospital industry as the public trust of hillarycare at that time was very low. I find this doubtful in my own mind as I would imagine that Scott, himself, would be a prime target if that had been the case. Second, and more practically, the federal investigation found so little wrong-doing by Rick Scott, himself, that they didn’t feel the need to even investigate and/or question him personally.
Cory Thompson
Read more at: www.redstate.com
Struck a nerve, eh?
I’ll always feel endebted to Mccollumn for helplng to impeach Clinton.
Wrong on both counts Einstein. I have no idea, and don't really care, what the Marian thing is all about and FYI, the majority holder in Mazda is, ready for this, sit down, FORD. The only automaker that did not take a bailout. But then again you most likely did not know about that by watching your buddy Obama take credit for Ford's success last week.
Despite all the other names you call people that get under your skin for no good reason, you still display the typical signs of a liberal or worse yet a RINO in that the only arguement you have is name calling and hate filled inflections.
Answer this one counselor, if Scott was so personally guilty of the crimes you profess, why was he not endicted and brought before a criminal court for his alledged actions? They didn't waste any time in going after Ken Lay when they had the goods now did they?
When you have your butt fired for fraud and incompetence and then you go back into the Medical Field again, you have to be just plain crooked.
Your statement just goes to prove you don't care about the fact his departure was self induced after the BoD refused to challenge the charges in court. But then again you are too busy listening to campaign commercials than reading the information I sent you earlier.
Good day Sammie.
And was he FOR Clinton’s impeachment???
Uh . . . yea. What is the big mystery to that question? McCollum was one of the House Managers including Lindsey Graham and Bob Barr. Would you vote for either one of the others today?
My beef within the Republican Party is the establishment politicians gave us a promise in ‘94. After the first 100 days of the 103rd Congress it all went downhill with spending and social programs that finally got most conservatives in the party ready to vacate them in 2006 as they did us. I did my job and voted anyway because I knew the alternative, which is what we have right now.
Then from 2006 to 2008, what was left of them continued to cuddle with their “good friends” on the other side of the aisle and spend us into oblivion before we even get to TARP and porkulus. Trent Lott sealed the deal with his comments about tea party groups.
What we have here is Progressive Light (R) and Progressive Xtreme (D) who controls the political or Ruling Class in our country and I like many other are sick of it. The only way off the merry-go-round for these people is to kick them off.
Smaller Government, less beurocracy, less regulation and a return to founding principles and career politicians were in no way a consideration at the founding. Lawyers are now considered even lower of likable professions than used car salesmen, but for some reason people keep electing lawyers to rule over our liberties.
At this point, I will choose a businessman anyday over an attorney.
NO, he was NOT, however, your question does not make sense!!!
Normally I will do that also, but only if it is an honest businessman!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.