Blind support is what he does have amongst those that want outsiders. The "outsider" schtick is all they can see. Now that he has won the GOP nomination and is the only GOP choice those wiser GOP voters who couldn't stand Scott...didn't trust him....will now cast their blind GOP lot with him. That is what I am saying here. Party blood runs thicker than character assessment.
Bill.....to what extent do you feel this will not hold true? It may be too early to tell because we don't know for sure how he will fare in the campaign to come. One thing is certain....the money will still be flowing. At 6 am this morning I saw the first attack ad on Sink... :roll:
Hmmmm.... The Republican candidate that won the primary will pick up votes from the Republican candidate that lost the primary. Wow! Scandalous. Of course you have to be blind to vote Republican anyway.
I am somewhat of a student of the Kennedy dynasty. I will read any book or watch any movie that deals with them and their ascent to the top level of power in the US. I'm not sure the extent of Scott's misdeeds but I am confident that he is a pauper when it comes to the shenanigans pulled off in the name of Camelot.
So lemme get this straight. If we can determine the Kennedys were scumbags.....then....therefore....it's quite alright...justified.....and in fact recommended that we elect one to the office of governor here in Florida. Excuse me.....I just do not agree with that logic whether it be a Democrat or Republican scumbag.
Dave, you are a master at talking about oranges when the subject is apples. Even when you started the apple discussion. You have either missed or ignored the whole point. You were whining and crying about Scott buying the election and that in your opinion he was dirty. No problem here with you doing either as it's what you always do. My problem with you in this topic, and many others, is your whole arrogant attitude and how you think you know so much more the 595,000 people who voted for Scott. And no way do you do anything similar for democratic candidates. I don't live in Florida and am not sure how I would vote in the general election. However I will tell you this, that I have such contempt for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama that I am reluctant to vote for any Democrat who might support them. In Sink's case she would be governor of a large state who gains representatives in the House of Representatives and with reapportionment coming up she would have a lot to do with that. Therefore you are absolutely correct that I would take a long look at Scott if I lived in Florida before I would vote against him. Like I have told you before, wait until November, big gains for the Republicans are coming and yes Scott just might benefit from that and the general vote for an outsider. Your question to me really has to relevance with the comments I have made, but Stu covered the topic well.
Bill....I have a simplified look at this race for governor in Florida. I.... like Ralph...prefer to think the individual running for office should bear close scrutiny...should be of good moral fiber and honest character. Maybe Scott is that guy. Maybe you will now believe that he is that guy even though you didn't think so before. THat type of flawed reasoning is what we have going on in this country. I would personally vote for George Bush.... before I would vote for Pelosi and at least I am willing to admit it. I voted for Nixon over McGovern and Bush over Dukakis. I am not a blind follower like so many and I don't drink the blog/extreme media driven cool aid as do many. What happened in 1960 means absolutely squat with regard to this 2010 election and the specific individuals running for the office. To me.....that is so easy to see.
What is so easy to see Dave is that you apply one standard to Republicans and a different one to Dems. Have a good evening. Oh, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Scott leading.
You're stuck in the meaningless events of 50 years ago as it pertains to today's candidates and you obviously posted before you read my entire post. If Scott wins this election I guarantee you he will bring disastrous embarassment to the GOP in Florida and nationally.
It will be interesting if this topic is still going in the first week of November.... 8) No matter if I agree with it or not I still pick Sink to win with the confusion in the republican ranks....
I think you may well be right Ralph and I might well vote for her myself if I still lived in Florida. I also might not for reasons I stated above. This topic won't keep going with my help. Dave, you are hopeless and clueless with that last post about stuck 50 years ago. You are so biased you can't see beyond your own thoughts and of course those 595,000 people who voted for Scott just aren't as smart as you. Dumb Floridians.
On the other hand, if he loses, there will be celebrating and joy to the GOP because Dave's candidate won.
re: "What happened in 1960 means absolutely squat with regard to this 2010 election and the specific individuals running for the office. To me.....that is so easy to see." Uh, Dave, I posted about the 1960 election, because you were referring to it. You even suggested that "Richard Melhouse N." was a rich guy who could buy elections too, which is ridiculous. If you don't want to know about these events, don't bring them up. History isn't something that can be manipulated in an honest debate. It is what it is...
Jo'Co......it was not I that brought up 1960 and JFK. 1960 relevance brought forth to 2010 from Bill: "Let me see MCG, without the family wealth the Kennedy's would have never won. And you can say the same for a lot of other politicians." And of course from there it morphed into how crooked the K's were in a defense more or less of Scott's questionable character. I don't get that extrapolation. I used the word "sleazy" in describing the Kennedy's in a show of support for their style. :roll:
Another deliberate twisting of what has been posted. Dave says one of the problems is that this guy is spending his own money to buy the election...implies that "buying his way in" makes him not trustworthy. Bill merely points out that one of the most revered Dems used family money. Dave says "Yeah but two things...not sure Kennedy's money was ill-gotten and not sure he bought the election". Stu posts references regarding the ill-gotten gains. JO'Co posts historical references regarding the buying of the election. Dave says you guys have morphed it into how crooked the K's were despite the fact that folks were only addressing your original "two things" points...in other words things that you yourself "morphed" into. Now you are complaining that we brought up the crookedness of the Kennedy money...(you did that...we brought up the money...you implied it wasn't crooked like Scott's)...You attack us claiming that we are saying it's ok to elect a scumbag just because the other side has done so...yada, yada, yada. No one has said nor implied that. I have posted some stuff that discusses the issue of whether he is crooked or not...I really don't know...not claiming he's clean...but at least I tried to post some substantive information on the other side. You are constantly twisting things...but we see right through you;