Today's editorial in the Gainesville Sun discusses Florida's new Tea Party Republican governor, Rick Scott. Having opposed him in the campaign (as I also did), the article's writer naturally points out a number of questionable items on the Governor-Elect's agenda.
For example, it is noted that Scott wants to shrink government. But the editorial writer counters that "Florida already has the leanest state workforce in America." The incoming governor wants to cut taxes in the face of unprecedented impending shortfalls in revenue. And his pro-school voucher stance may violate the state's constitution in two areas.
After bringing forth all of the preceding valid points (among others), the editorial then questions whether Scott's business-model approach to state government will help or hurt Florida in the years to come.
All fine for an editorial, right? But then the writer incredibly states, "In any case, today is not a day to second-guess our new governor but to wish him well at the beginning of a new term that is sure to bring with it a steep learning curve."
What? WHAT?? If today isn't the day for second-guessing, then what do you call what you're doing for most of the editorial? To top off the hypocrisy, the writer closes the editorial with the statement, "Campaign promises are a dime a dozen, but the damages done by decisions based soled on the immediate fiscal and political bottom-line can be incalculable."
I actually tend to agree with all of the criticisms that the editorial makes of Rick Scott and his agenda. But it is disingenuous to me, in the midst of this criticism, to insert a high-and-holy pronouncement (apparently directed for the reader to follow) against "second-guessing".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment