---
"This decision to step aside comes with many emotions – sadness, yes, but also resolve and faith that our message has not fallen on deaf ears. While she and I have some differences, I am confident that she will wake up every morning determined to fight for what’s best for Floridians."
---
He draws a stark difference, of course, with zillionaire Rick Scott, who "may not have the best interest of Floridians at heart." I call that an understatement, but then, I am no politician or statesman.
But I want to draw a stark contrast with this and Bill McCollum. As quoted in The Buzz, McCollum has congratulated Scott but has no plans to endorse. Apparently, after a slash-and-burn campaign where Scott refused to disclose much about himself but tarred and feathered a long-serving public servant, McCollum still has questions about "his charecter, his integrity, his honesty."
I don't think that is just sour grapes. I was amazed in 2004 when Bill McCollum, after a grueling primary in which Mel Martinez called McCollum the "new darling of the homosexual extremists," McCollum ended up backing the GOP nominee. What is different now?
This is an executive post. McCollum may have had a professional respect in 2004 for Democrat Betty Castor, but he was not going to back anyone who would caucus in Washington with Senate Democrats. In collegial legislative bodies, party matters. So does philosophy, and whatever personal gripe he had with Martinez, the two aligned politically, and Martinez would promote a similar agenda to the one McCollum had in Congress.
But a major thing to consider as Chiles endorses Sink is this. Chiles has no obligation to back Sink. He challenged as an independent. There is no party commitment. He hasn't run before and may never run again. McCollum, though, has somewhat of a partisan obligation to back the victor of the primary in the general election. Right now, he is choosing not to do so.
That truly speaks volumes.
No comments:
Post a Comment