Just when you thought you've seen everything, along comes more head scratching material that leaves you in wonderment. Seems some guy published his last wishes to be disclosed at his funeral and his very last wish was? Not world peace. Not that his family is taken care of. Not that his life was not spent in vain. But that no one vote for Hillary Clinton to be president. Yep, according to press releases, Larry Darrell Upright made sure that everyone knew his last dying wish (see http://news.yahoo.com/one-mans-last-wish-dont-vote-hillary-clinton-185006662.htm). Who is this Larry dude and why is it front-page Internet news? Was he an established political scientist that knows enough about Clinton to voice his dying wish for his friends and family to take seriously? Or is he just another of 318 million Americans voicing an opinion...now even from the grave (okay folks, don't even go to Kennedy benefiting from the dead in Chicago...Nixon did the same in Southern Illinois). My point is this...we have serious issues facing our great nation and somehow the news media elects this type of story to be front and center? Like anyone in the media will not vote for Clinton solely because of Mr. Upright's final wish? Geesh, will this story have "legs" after you even read about it? Of course not, but once again, we cannot take our media seriously when it comes to relating real news. Seems Americans are no longer interested in real news, but prefer the People Magazine version instead. Long live Infotainment (not)!
Which gets me to my larger point. As we begin the perpetual race to the presidency, how many "news" stories have been published already that actually reflect real news? Outside of Florida, has anyone heard about our governor who flip-flopped on Medicaid expansion just after being re-elected? In Florida, our legislature is quibbling whether to expand Medicaid with the granting of Billions in Federal revenue sharing, despite the lobbying in favor of the expansion by virtually all hospital and medical care interests. Our governor is threatening to sue the Obama Administration for "coercing Florida into the expansion" (Florida was told in 2013 the current pilot program funding would end in 2o14, but that does not stop GOP Governor Scott from spending Millions of Dollars to sue Obama for the umpteenth time, all without a single victory). It seems Florida Governor Rick Scott believes "Pilot Programs" under Creative Federalism somehow means permanent funding - when in reality, no one agrees with this creative notion (including GOP members of the Florida legislature). Can you say "Case Dismissed" when this will be heard in the Courts (while upwards of 800,000 poor children are denied health care as a result)? Until Scott can get his head straight about the expansion option, the State Legislature is holding up its 2015 budget like a prize in some form of hostage negotiation. Everything is up in the air in Florida, from local revenue sharing to school budgets and benefits to its citizens. Yet once again the mantra for Rick Scott is "Blame Obama" when he should shamefully be looking into the mirror at himself (see http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/florida-lawsuit-sue-obamacare-medicaid-rick-scott-117051.html). Now I know partisans will attack me for going after Rick Scott (again), but his dispute has even caused Intra-Party schisms in Florida. It seems many Republicans in the State House disagree with Rick Scott and actually understand that the Federal government allows Creative Federalism with limits. Why is it some Conservatives (not all) want "limited government" except when it comes to producing money for their State programs and then complain when the limits are reached? Does anyone recall Rick Scott rejecting Billions in Federal rail way funds because he claimed the Fed's might end subsidies and could not be trusted to keep the State from making up the financial shortfalls that might arise? (See http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/gov-rick-scott-rejects-funding-for-high-speed-rail/1151937). Is it possible that even Florida Republicans are beginning to regret having Rick Scott as their leader in hypocrisy? Nah, they would never admit having a hypocritical leader, it would take too much away from their now concerted efforts to chip away at Clinton.
There you go again Rubin, shilling for Clinton! Has anyone seen an endorsement from me for Clinton? Nope. But what I can tell you is that Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, and a host of other potential GOP contenders are NOT what America needs in 2016. Instead of slamming one candidate from one party, where is the critical review of the other wannabe candidates? Instead of telling us all what is wrong with Clinton, will someone please step up and tell us about another candidate that would be better? Tell us a candidate's ideas to move America forward instead of being "the lesser of two evils?" Will a credible alternative to Clinton please emerge from the GOP? Probably not (the current candidates' financial handlers have already decided who they want). As we memorialize the 150th anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we should seek someone like him? As President Lincoln himself once wrote, "Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition." Somehow I think Lincoln's final wish would be that we find a truly qualified presidential candidate interested more in restoring our great nation than attacking fellow candidates just to win the White House and the fame it brings. Let's hope we find a candidate for the presidency that is worthy of recognition and elect that person to the White House in 2016! In the interim, it is my wish that you all have a great week!
Which gets me to my larger point. As we begin the perpetual race to the presidency, how many "news" stories have been published already that actually reflect real news? Outside of Florida, has anyone heard about our governor who flip-flopped on Medicaid expansion just after being re-elected? In Florida, our legislature is quibbling whether to expand Medicaid with the granting of Billions in Federal revenue sharing, despite the lobbying in favor of the expansion by virtually all hospital and medical care interests. Our governor is threatening to sue the Obama Administration for "coercing Florida into the expansion" (Florida was told in 2013 the current pilot program funding would end in 2o14, but that does not stop GOP Governor Scott from spending Millions of Dollars to sue Obama for the umpteenth time, all without a single victory). It seems Florida Governor Rick Scott believes "Pilot Programs" under Creative Federalism somehow means permanent funding - when in reality, no one agrees with this creative notion (including GOP members of the Florida legislature). Can you say "Case Dismissed" when this will be heard in the Courts (while upwards of 800,000 poor children are denied health care as a result)? Until Scott can get his head straight about the expansion option, the State Legislature is holding up its 2015 budget like a prize in some form of hostage negotiation. Everything is up in the air in Florida, from local revenue sharing to school budgets and benefits to its citizens. Yet once again the mantra for Rick Scott is "Blame Obama" when he should shamefully be looking into the mirror at himself (see http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/florida-lawsuit-sue-obamacare-medicaid-rick-scott-117051.html). Now I know partisans will attack me for going after Rick Scott (again), but his dispute has even caused Intra-Party schisms in Florida. It seems many Republicans in the State House disagree with Rick Scott and actually understand that the Federal government allows Creative Federalism with limits. Why is it some Conservatives (not all) want "limited government" except when it comes to producing money for their State programs and then complain when the limits are reached? Does anyone recall Rick Scott rejecting Billions in Federal rail way funds because he claimed the Fed's might end subsidies and could not be trusted to keep the State from making up the financial shortfalls that might arise? (See http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/gov-rick-scott-rejects-funding-for-high-speed-rail/1151937). Is it possible that even Florida Republicans are beginning to regret having Rick Scott as their leader in hypocrisy? Nah, they would never admit having a hypocritical leader, it would take too much away from their now concerted efforts to chip away at Clinton.
There you go again Rubin, shilling for Clinton! Has anyone seen an endorsement from me for Clinton? Nope. But what I can tell you is that Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, and a host of other potential GOP contenders are NOT what America needs in 2016. Instead of slamming one candidate from one party, where is the critical review of the other wannabe candidates? Instead of telling us all what is wrong with Clinton, will someone please step up and tell us about another candidate that would be better? Tell us a candidate's ideas to move America forward instead of being "the lesser of two evils?" Will a credible alternative to Clinton please emerge from the GOP? Probably not (the current candidates' financial handlers have already decided who they want). As we memorialize the 150th anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we should seek someone like him? As President Lincoln himself once wrote, "Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition." Somehow I think Lincoln's final wish would be that we find a truly qualified presidential candidate interested more in restoring our great nation than attacking fellow candidates just to win the White House and the fame it brings. Let's hope we find a candidate for the presidency that is worthy of recognition and elect that person to the White House in 2016! In the interim, it is my wish that you all have a great week!
RSS Feed
