Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

The shadow Gov. Bush casts over Florida is a dark one

The article in last Sunday's Times entitled Jeb Bush's long shadow should have be entitled ". . . long dark shadow." It is hard to imagine that so much truly bad public policy has been dumped on our state and its people by just one governor! Of course, he had plenty of cooperation from our mindless Legislature. The list you printed in your article reads like a horror story of one disaster after another.

Bush's so-called education reforms aren't reforms at all! They are mostly an attempt to get as much public money as possible into private hands. Beyond that, all it has done is stress out students and their teachers to the point where any real learning, in a broad sense, is actually being stifled.

Bush's rabid obsession with privatization might be the biggest disaster of them all. There have been no real savings, and turning over the operation of state prisons and child welfare programs to private business is terrible public policy. As a taxpayer, I am outraged by it. Where is the accountability when something goes wrong in a prison or a child is "lost" or mistreated? All we can be told now is that some private company screwed up. Well I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

The next governor should move immediately to reverse all of the privatization created during Bush's term. Unfortunately it can't be done easily because whole departments have been disbanded and the employees scattered to the winds. But the process must begin.

Bush might take a little credit for the drop in the crime rate because of his get-tough laws. But other than that, history is going to look back on Jeb Bush's term as one of the worst. He has made a lot of things happen, but the vast majority aren't good things, and Florida will suffer for many years under that dark shadow he has cast.

Jeb doesn't belong in Senate

Re: Run, Jeb, run!, March 5.

With all due respect and consideration for Tim Nickens, the Times' deputy editor of editorials, one would have to believe this is an appeasement for Jeb Bush who openly states he does not care about editorials that criticize him especially when Nickens acknowledges Jeb Bush "has his own vision, and he's not wild about hearing opposing views or compromising."

The Times has been, as long as I have been an avid reader, a newspaper that does not shirk from the truth, and the truth is Jeb Bush is not the one to represent the people of Florida in the U.S. Senate when he has already failed to listen to them as their governor.

An unseemly attack on judges

Re: If judges won't stand up to Bush, who will? by Robyn Blumner, March 5.

This column was offensive and disrespectful to members of the federal judiciary. What evidence does Robyn Blumner have that any judge did not "stand up" to President Bush? This column mentions only two judges by name but suggests that all federal judges are somehow "shrugging their shoulders" in favor of the Bush administration. Did it ever occur to her that these two judges simply did their job in good faith and their opinions just happen to be different from hers?

Any attack on a federal district judge should mention that these judges are appointed for life terms and have absolutely nothing to gain from "shrugging their shoulders."

Next time, Blumner should direct her venom at the person with whom she's really upset: President Bush.

The busing insanity

Re: Jebucation, March 5.

One quote in your editorial says it all: "It's absolutely unreasonable to think a school district can focus on all these things at one time and still keep the buses running."

The insanity of spending billions of dollars over the years transporting students instead of focusing on the quality of education and educational facilities is responsible for this mess, and the editorial policies of your newspaper as well as former administrations must share the blame for this absurdity.

Bending the rules again

Re: GOP senators, White House reach deal on wiretapping program, March 8.

This agreement for after-the-fact "oversight" is just another way that the Bush administration has skirted the law and avoided any real consequences. The GOP has hijacked the issue and has agreed to bend the rules - again.

The Senate Intelligence Committee should be focusing on the fact that the president broke the FISA law, and what the appropriate ramifications will be for that action. The American people, regardless of party, lose more faith and confidence every day because no one in the federal government cares whether the laws already in place are being followed. Therefore, what makes them think we will believe that any new agreement will be respected or enforced?

What kind of an example are they setting, and where will this lead us in the future?

A victory for the people

Re: Dubai ports deal.

The Dubai ports deal is dead as originally presented with the transfer now to a U.S. operations entity. We can be assured that what keeps our country great is the people who use their rights and freedoms for the greater good. United we stand.

Keep the Guard for use at home

Re: Protecting the National Guard, editorial, March 6.

Our National Guard should be a branch of Homeland Security and should be used only for problems in the United States. The governor of each state should have full authority to mobilize the National Guard in his or her state. Homeland Security should have authority to mobilize the National Guard of any state. Our Coast Guard should also be used to protect the coast of the United States and not ports in Iraq or any other foreign ports.

Our home defenses have been stripped to fight a useless war for people that hate the United States. Wake up, Congress.

The people should come first

Re: House okays plan to strip warnings from food labels, March 9.

The House of Representatives should represent "we the people" before lobbyists from food companies. If they strip warnings from food products that advise consumers about poisons and other noxious substances in food, what can be next? Doing away with warnings about tobacco and alcohol?

[Last modified March 11, 2006, 17:03:03]