« Did FL government budget cuts contribute to boy's death in DJJ lockup? | Main | Report: Florida is one of three states with most toxic air »

Could Allen West and Debbie Wasserman Schultz run against each other in '12?

The "vile" war of words between Broward U.S. Reps Allen West and Debbie Wasserman Schultz could be more than just a conservative bashing a hardcore liberal over her rhetoric. What if it's a prelude to a campaign where they have to run against each other in 2012? Some political insiders are already salivating at the spectacle of the two outspoken pols clashing on the stump.

It's certainly possible because this is the season of the possible -- redistricting, the once-a-decade process where state legislators redraw the lines of congressional and legislative seats to make sure that each district has about the same number of people. This January, there could be more chaos because two new constitutional provisions prohibit lawmakers from drawing districts that favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

Both districts need to get bigger, as well. West's District 22 is underpopulated by 2,086 (.3%) and Wasserman Schultz's District 20 is underpopulated by 4,618 (.7%). Target population: 696,345, if you're wondering.

Also, it appears that West already lives in Wasserman Schultz' district. So he's already poised to clash with her if the district boundaries don't change too much.

As an aside, the nut-jobs who think we're racists for saying he lives in Plantation don't understand that Plantation is a city in Broward County. (So is Weston, where Wasserman Schultz lives.) Sorry, guys, you'll have to come up with a new specious line of ersatz outrage.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LINDA BROOKS

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHIMENT

The culmination of current political events, the enactment of universal health for children up to the age of kindergarten, expansion of Medicare coverage and the threat of default of US securities while threatening to temporarily discontinue social security payments―the only solvent public fund controled by the government, testifies to President Obama’s incompetence as our national leader and betrayal of the trust of the American people. Moreover, the economic ramifications that will result from a temporary halt to social security will be expansive in economic as well as taxable terms.

It should be remembered that social security was initiated at the time of the New Deal legislation during Roosevelt’s presidency. The reasoning behind it was that the US government adopted Keynesian economics which posited that a significant economic down-turn could be averted by forced spending. Therefore, Keynesianism is premised on deficit spending by the government as well as the American people and would be accomplished through government manipulation of economic dynamics. The New Dealers conceded at the time that the establishment of social security was necessary because Keynesian economics would cause the American people not to save for their retirement years. To protect them in their old age, social security was established.

It should also be remembered that Medicare was established during President Johnson administration. Medicare monies are by far more at risk of being wasted than is that of social security: medicare supports a single industry, medicine; whereas, social security redistributes monies collected by the government back to the public that is spent throughout our economic system. Medicare is the area of expenditures that needs to be curtailed not the other way around. The young American people are not yet inculcated to universal health care; but social security is well entrenched. To change that now would require a complete overhaul of the economic structures that have been put in place since the New Deal. Cutting back on Medicare would be felt minimally; but social security, at a time when the American population is aging, would be significant. Moreover, I doubt that the US government is prepared to discontinue collecting funds that would be necessitated if social security were curtailed; funds that are at the top of the US governments source for borrowing. In fact, it is the US government that owes the debt to Social Security rather than the other way around.

If President Obama can’t figure out how to solve this problem without throwing old people, widow(er)s and the physically handicapped into the streets, then we need a new President.

From an angry voter in Florida: Linda S. Brooks

GuntherZorn

Angry, is there anything in your rant that is germane to the article, or just venting?

Carol Levy

Linda Brooks, you are confused. It is the REPUBLICANS who want to decimate medicare turning it into a voucher program that will cost seniors and disabled thousands for health coverage.
I am on disability so I am very worried too but because the repubs must not be allowed to have their way now or if they somehow win the next election.
President Obama indicated in his last conference that he would be amenable to 'means' testing. I know some find it abhorrent but for the majority of us we will not be effected by it.

Wendy

Are you really disabled? I know A LOT of Missourians and Americans defraud taxpayers like me by claiming they are disabled but really aren't. Nobody wants to freaking work any more, don't blame them what is the point? I want MY social security to come to ME, it is MY FREAKING money not anyone else's. SS is joke and I want to invest my 15% the way I see fit. Anyone who thinks the SS is a good idea is really, really ignorant.

Rev. Lawrence P. Michael

Lady, you are as stupid as most who are as ignorant of what is going on in politics as you are. Shame on you. You should take some courses on how to become apart of the human race. I thank God that I am not from Florida. We should rename it the State of the Stupid and blame it on some one else. It fits!!! Rev. Lawrence P. Micael

Regisp

I thought that the Social Security System was a bona-fide trust. I was under the impression that the American workers that paid into the trust from their hard earned labor, of which their employer paid in a portion was the funding mechanism. I am having a hard time trying to find out or figure how anyone other than the folks that put money in can be a beneficiary. Or, better yet, how can anyone that is NOT a trustee borrow money from the Trust and then refer to my fellow retired working Americans that they or their trust are to be treated as a handout from the bureaucrats. Something is WRONG with this picture and speaking for one old timer that has worked his "ass" off to put money into a trust and have someone that has not put a "dime" into it, sit back and tell me that myself and my fellow retired workers are facing a cutback on our own money is a slap in the face.

Our own money is not an entitlement program. IF, we have fewer folks putting money into this fund as others say, then when in the hell is Washington going to pay back to the trust (with interest) the money that it owes? Why can't we get a true accounting rather than have our hard earned money in the middle of the "shell game' being played.

-

Rev. Micheal,

That is quite enough. As a resident and native born of the state of stupid, a well versed man in many religions, a firm soldier in the army of God, a follower of the Light of the world and a man who is redeemed by the precious Blood of Christ I honestly can't understand how anyone who publicly represents themselves as a reverend could be so judgemental. I am well versed in American Government and politics, and am a firm defender of the constitution, and therefore come by my opinions honestly, but my friend that constitution states that we live in a land of free people in which we hold the truths of independence (i.e. "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...") this, to those of you who are not familiar, comes from the Declaration of Independence and pretty much states that we all have the God given rights to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. Those rights are are declared (i.e.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.") and are protected in our Constitution. Some of these include, ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") and of course many areas which establish the right to vote. What I'm trying to state here is that as a civilian of this nation you have fallen under oath to our constitution and therefore are obligated to defend those priciples upon which it stands meaning something like this. You may not agree with other people but you must respect them. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE YOUR OPINONS KNOWN EACH TIME THERE IS AN ELECTION. So, if you didnt get your way last time you have another chance, and if you did, you have the chance to keep that in tact. That is the way we work. As an ordained man of God which i understand you to be as you have qouted Rev. in front of your name you adhere to another more inportant set of commands, and really you only have to follow two of them because those two sum up all other commandments. Those commandments are "Love the lord your God with all your Heart, with all your Sould, with all your minda and with all your Strength." and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Now trust me, I am a patriot in great support of this nation and its constitution, my family over the course of the history of this nation has sacraficed much to see it progrees into the greatest nation on earth so i am very strongly opinionated; however, because of the code that Jesus commanded me to follow i have to remember that though i dont have to love what people do, I do have to love them because in God's eyes i am no bigger than them. My advice to you sir would be that if you dont respect someones opinion calmly state your case in confrontation. If this does not change their mind then leave it be and pray for the person as Jesus stated, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. However, should you wish to not adhere to my advice and wish to continue on calling yourself "Christian" or "representative or Reverend of Christ" as a brother in the Perfect Love of Christ with the best of wishes in heart I would offer you this ultimatum: EITHER CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE OR CHANGE YOUR PROFESSION OF FAITH.
To any who were offended by the reverends comments I am very sorry, we all are human and therefore all subject to error, but that is not the example that Christ taught us to set.

-

For all typos I also apologize as my keyboard is old and slightly whack; and for all other grievances please do not hold me subject as it appears I am as stated from the "State of Stupid."

Glen McDaniel

I read Allen West's rude, un-gentlemanly tirade directed at Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It is so embarrassing. It sounds like a pissy ghetto woman who has been wronged somehow. This email -full of grammatical errors and cowardly threats, and obviously penned by a thug -is not worthy of congressman. Shame on you Allen West. Is that the way you were brought up??

-

Mr. McDaniel, if you please, where may i read this email?

The comments to this entry are closed.