The primary is over and the self-proclaimed “outsider” won the election. Rick Scott won by a slim margin over Bill McCollum after months of hard-fought campaigning. It came to a point where voters were starting to not give a damn about either one. Both claimed to run a positive campaign, but any casual observer knows that wasn’t the case. This article is not an attempt to cast blame over who got negative first or which was worse because as of August 25th, 2010 that is no longer important.

What is important is for the Republican Party to regain control of the Governor’s Mansion. I say “regain” because Charlie Crist is not a Republican and quite frankly an argument could be made that he never really was in the first place.

I believe in GOP unity. The Republican Party is a vehicle for conservative values. It’s never perfect and sometimes not even acceptable, but when a car breaks down, you try to fix it before you abandon it all together. If we abandon the vehicle now, then we risk allowing a much more serious problem to worsen in our state. We risk allowing a complete liberal who supports the Barack Obama agenda to help shape and determine our future. If there is anything we know for sure about Obama liberals, it’s that they wish to have more of a hand in shaping our future than we wish to allow.

Republicans who supported Bill McCollum are undoubtedly disappointed in the results of the Republican primary. Believe me when I tell you that I can completely understand how you feel. I felt it when John McCain defeated Mitt Romney in the2008 Florida Presidential primary. I was extremely upset about the outcome and threatened to sit out the election.

I thank God that I have good friends who corrected my way of thinking and helped me to understand that no matter how much I disagreed with John McCain, he was an infinitely better candidate for our nation than the alternative. Some might say that I should try a third party option and maybe in the future that will be viable, but for 2008 at least, McCain was the only one with a chance to beat Obama.

I think applying that logic to the 2010 race for Florida Governor is vitally important for our state. I understand that many McCollum supporters hate Rick Scott right now and that’s fine. I am not writing this to convince you to like Rick Scott. I am writing this to remind McCollum supporters that the cause is greater than us all and we have a clear choice this November.

If you’re upset about the Scott win, you can choose to sit out this election and allow a liberal democrat that is in line with the total Obama agenda to become the next Governor or our state. But if you’re tired off that agenda and what it’s doing to our state and our country as well then the choice is clear. It’s vitally important to find your way to the polls in November to give your vote to Rick Scott. At the very least despite what you may think of him if you supported McCollum in the primary, Rick, like McCollum, is a man that has vocally devoted his platform to the ideals and values that all Republicans hold dear to their hearts. If you overlook that and allow a liberal to win one of the most important offices in our state then you are helping the Obama agenda. I know in your heart of hearts that is not your intention, but it is the end result of sitting this election out because of anger.

I hope that everyone spreads this message to other Florida Republicans who are upset about the election outcome. If not this note, write a note, blog, or article yourself and let’s promote conservative Republican unity this election. If we can’t come together and we allow Charlie Crist, Alex Sink, Dan Gelber, and Alan Grayson to win then we haven’t learned a thing through all of this talk of taking America back. In fact, because of our desire to find our “perfect” candidate, we may have taken a few steps backwards should we allow the democrats to win.

Usually a person is considered racist if they believe that one race is superior to another race. That is no longer the case. Now, you’re a racist if you believe anything that does not coincide with the talking points of the democrat party.

The chant of racism by democrats is yet another tactic to attempt to prey on emotion and backdoor their way into winning an argument. It’s no different than calling someone a homophobe or intolerant. It’s also the same as telling someone they are against the poor because they want to talk about welfare reform rather than bankrupt and destroy the country financially.

Quite frankly at this point I don’t care anymore if someone calls me a racist. In fact, I may even wear it as a badge of honor. Not because I dislike minorities or feel my race is “superior” to another, but because it shows me that I’m winning the argument on a practical platform.

I find it interesting that every time I call for securing the border and punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals, I am called a racist. Why am I racist? Did I say that I wanted to punish employers who hired Hispanics? Did I say what I wanted to keep a certain group of people out all together? It’s common sense to want to keep the sovereignty of your home. Just as we have property lines for our personal homes, we have to have property lines for our country. It’s not racist to want to protect our home, workers, and citizens in general. If it’s racist to want to stop the burden on our economy and our taxpayers by enforcing our federal immigration laws, protect our citizens from the massive amount of crime committed by illegals, or stop illegal aliens from taking away job opportunities from our legal citizens then I guess I am a racist. The common sense solutions proposed to protect our border are to protect Americans of all races and ethnicities.

It’s not homophobic or intolerant to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s common sense that the traditional family is the best environment for our future generations to grow and develop. It’s also well known that the best answer to fight poverty is for married couples to stay together. Therefore it’s common sense to pass legislation that provides a conducive environment for the traditional family to thrive in order to give our children the best chance possible as well as giving average Americans the most opportunities in life to succeed. These notions aren’t just ideology, but they are common sense. A conservative never tells someone how to live their own life in their own home. However, a conservative won’t give up the principles or the benefits of the traditional marriage being between a man and woman simply because someone thinks we are “afraid” of homosexual people as a result of our beliefs.

How can a traditional family survive in a country that is financially unstable? Conservatives are compassionate toward families in need and on a personal level many of us can sympathize. However, no matter how hard the times are that we go through, we realize that the solution always resides in the power of the individual. However, liberals see it differently. They see the answer in big government programs. So big, in fact, that those same programs are bankrupting this nation as entitlement spending takes up over half of our budget and the three biggies Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are in the hole to the tune of around anywhere from 60-90 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. The massive entitlement spending is creating a nation that is becoming more and more dependent on government and that dependency is sinking the ship. They are sinking the ship that created the greatest middle class in the history of mankind and has provided more economic opportunity to more people than ever before as 80% of millionaires created their own wealth in this country.

So let’s get this straight. If you favor a system where all legal Americans have the first opportunity to all jobs in this country and protects them from unnecessary crime and tax burdens that hinder their freedom, then you’re a racist. If you favor a traditional institution that is proven to give children and families the best possible chance to succeed as well as being the best weapon against poverty then you’re a racist and a homophobe. If you wish to have fiscal responsibility that creates a financially independent population that has the opportunity to provide for themselves and keep our nation financially solvent then you’re a racist, homophobe, and you hate the poor.

The solutions that conservatives provide to the problems of today are solutions for all people of all races and ethnicities whereas it’s the liberal that focuses their campaign promises on racial motivations. They tell us not to look at skin color or sexual orientation, but when we want to treat everyone equally they then say we aren’t considering the persons skin color or sexual orientation. It’s about the seriousness of the charge , not the nature of the evidence as a wise man once said and that’s all liberals are hoping for when they make those accusations. They are hoping when they charge you with racism that you’ll back down and cower into their corner.

If you’re one that is afraid of being called a racist by liberals then I can show you how you won’t be labeled as such. If you sit in a church for 20 years listening to a pastor that degrades whites and Jews, then you’re not a racist. If you drop a case against the black panther party who intimidated white voters, then you’re not a racist. If you and the media use race to win an election, then you’re not a racist. If you admit in several passages in a book that you author that you feel or have felt animosity toward white people, then you’re not a racist. This list could go on for a very, very long time, but you get the picture.

You could change your approach and side with the liberals that if you’re a conservative white man or woman then you are automatically suspected of being a racist before you open your mouth so you had better watch out, shut up, and agree with them. Or, you can be like me and tell them that if I’m a racist then at least I can learn the error of my ways, but they’re in real trouble because stupid is forever and can’t be fixed.

I’ve been leaning this way for a couple months and I’ve decided to fully support Rick Scott for Florida Governor. I want to point out that this is not meant to be an anti-Bill McCollum article (Scott’s opponent in the Republican primary). Should Bill McCollum win the nomination, then I will have no problem fully supporting him against the likely democrat, Alex Sink. I think Bill McCollum is overall a good man, but I just think Rick Scott would be the best for the job at this place and time. One thing I will address before I get into the meat of my post, I am a little tired of discussion and debate. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be. I don’t mind addressing issues that are brought up by the opposition. That’s part of debate. However, when I address the issue, unless you have a question to further the discussion as a result of my answer, then can we please move on? It’s not fun to get the same exact talking point used against me when I’ve addressed it and obviously the person has found no flaw with my answer or else they would have brought it up. I say “talking point” because that’s when it becomes a talking point is when it’s brought up over and over and over again against a person in an argument who has already addressed it. It’s a fair question until that point. When it starts to dominate a discussion it really lessens the impact of the subject-matter and then neither of us learn from it. You don’t have to agree with or even believe me in what I say when I address the point, but if you have nothing to add after the fact then let’s move on. Now, onto the meat of the article.

Usually I have a caveat for who I support in political races. I tend to lean toward men or women who have been successful in business. Rick Scott has not only been successful, but found the kind of success that only men of vision and passion in their field can attain. I’ve been able to learn and understand the psyche of many rich and successful men and women as a result of my association with my good friends Darren and Jamie Guzzi. It really is a priceless education. The amount of vision it takes to create something so successful often starts with a simple dream. Sure, we all have dreams. However, it is those who make those dreams a reality that are the backbone of an American society that all conservatives love to praise as the greatest in history.

Rick Scott is one of those men who had a vision. He helped turn 2 hospitals into 340 in a very short time. In simple words that doesn’t seem very impressive. It can pass through a person’s breath like a single raindrop hitting ground among many. However, I would ask someone to consider the vision that took to not only start a business, but to thrive as well in a country where it’s common that 9 out of 10 business’ fail within the first year. To succeed it not only takes vision, hard-work, and perseverance when times are bad, but also the ability to work with others and find a common ground on goals that ultimately move the organization forward. The common ground needed to make a business successful is one where there is fierce debate at the top over how to move that business forward and make it successful. In the board rooms where ideas are written down, it takes true leadership to bring people together for one common vision.

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.

However, no matter what we believe about Scott’s involvement, some are worried that the very nature of the scandal alone could derail Scott in the election whether he is innocent or not. This is another fair question from his detractors. However, I would argue that this is actually advantageous to Rick Scott when compared to Bill McCollum. Rick Scott’s “scandal” is over and done. It has been for almost a decade. It can be talked about and answered by Rick Scott and his supporters. However, Bill McCollum is associated with a man that JUST got charged with 6 felonies. Does that mean that Bill McCollum did anything wrong? No, of course not. I’m not jumping to any conclusions. But for those who are worried about Scott’s scandal hurting him in the general, shouldn’t you be worried about Bill’s possible scandal that hasn’t even been resolved yet? Not to mention the timing of it as more comes out in the media can set Bill McCollum up for the perfect “October surprise” that would obviously benefit the democrats in November. It’s intellectually dishonest to bring up the fear of Rick Scott’s past without acknowledging that Bill McCollum could be headed for some trouble himself in the very near future. One “scandal” is done and over with while the other “scandal” is just now rising to the surface.

Others may also argue that it’s upsetting that these two are beating each other up politically during the primary and that it’s an advantage for the democrats in November. Again, I disagree. Once again competition proves to be a good thing. This will make both candidates better as they will be battle tested when it comes time for the general election. Couple that with the fact that now all of the dirty laundry is being aired and the people of Florida will have heard of all of it before the democrats can use it against them. This way the only people these “scandals” will resonate with are some independents and the people who weren’t going to vote for either Scott or McCollum in the first place.

I chose Rick Scott because he is a proven fighter. He has fought universal healthcare with his own resources. He has brought awareness to the atrocities of Hillary/Obamacare with his understanding of the medical profession. He wanted to fight the allegations by the federal probe instead of just give in and settle so the “public” wouldn’t think ill of the company. Rick Scott helped build a massive business across 37 states that employed over 285,000 people working for over 340 hospitals. He knows what business’ big and small need to create jobs in the private sector and has proven it with his own experience and not just lip service. Rick Scott understands that the Arizona immigration law is not an extreme measure, but rather just good common sense to help the federal government do it’s job and protect American workers. I chose Rick Scott because I believe he is the right choice for Florida right now.