Scotts Columbia hospital fiasco was big deal on east coast and Sink's pension dabblings is something that I havent heard too much about except for what is on campaing ads and how much truth are in those...
There's no doubt in my pea brain, that Scott knew exactly what was going on within his organization.
Furthermore, his deposition antics, I can't recall, I don't understand, I'm not sure....blah blah blah...are/were reminiscent of the Clinton debacle.
So in my mind (*insert standard disclaimer here*), I'm not saying that he was guilty or innocent; but in my little brain, I feel he's guilty!:thumbsdown:
Alex Sink on the other hand, was CEO of BOA (that right there is enough for me:thumbsdown

and we all know how much they care about the public

.
She was also CFO when the pension system went down the crapper.
Deny it or not, as CFO, she was at the helm when the ship ran aground.
And as with the Captain of any ship, she has to shoulder the responsibility for her actions (or inactions) and those of her crew!
Again, I personally think she had more input and involvment than she'll ever admit to:thumbsdown:
So, the bottom line for me is they're both dirty.
They're both guilty of ineptitude and deception in one form or another.
And neither of them have the intestinal fortitude, the integrity, or the plain ole' BALLS! to stand up before the people and say, yes, this is what happened.
Yes, I was responsible for...... and yes, I'm human and I screwed up.
Have the integrity to ask for the public's forgiveness, and set out a solid plan for moving this state and it's economy forward, and the amount of beurocracy and government intervention backward!!
If either of them did, I'd hire a f**king skywriter to plaster VOTE FOR XXXXXXXX all over the bay area skies!!
But alas, my $$ is safe
Scott
CAN'T. Altoghether now. Say perjury, obstruction and fraud:lmao:
and...
Sink
WON'T Hell, just look at the sidebar on
THIS SITE!!!

:nonod::thumbsdown::thumbsdown

BA ad: "Florida Law Enforcement ENDORCES ALEX SINK" with thier logo over her mug shot:nonod:
Really? I think I'd ask some of the guys and gals who've seen thier pensions drop like a used condom at a drive in theater, over the losses from bad state run investments.
Surprised that Crist is not fairing so well...
It doesn't really surprise me.
His wishy washy, indecisive, lets change sides, blank stare in the distance persona, may have been hius undoing.
I think people are ready for another change.
Im just so tired of all the negative ads and signs everywhere
Amen....but it wouldn't be American politics without them.
I'd love to have just one election, where the candidates:
1) Had a spending cap.
2) Ran on thier accomplishments, not defended against thier shortfalls (we all have them).
3) Were prohibited from negative advertising.
4) Published thier stated goals and objectives, a plan to fulfill them (sort of like a business plan when we as citizens ask for a business loan), and a contract with the public, with sanctions, if they failed to fulfill those goals, based of course on reasonableness.
5) Were forced to return or donate the over amounts of thier fundraising cap, to a charity within the US, State, City or County, depending on the race, once the race was over.
6) Were vetted by some independent committe, and people like Sink & Scott, would not be able to run, because of thier backgrounds (which may negate many of the negative ad campaigns to start with).
In the end, yes I care what a person may have done.
I care that Scott was involved in the healthcare mess.
I care that Sink was at the helm during the pension problem.
I care that she was somehow linked to BOA.
I also care about what they "can" do, "want" to do, and what the percieve as immediate issues to be resolved.
But without a viable alternative, we are forced to choose, once again, between the lesser evils. Either way we go, we're still screwed (IMO).
So study your candidates well.
Use your head, your heart and your integrity, and decide wisely.
And lets hope for the best after the fallout...:thumbsup::yesnod::thumbsup: