Furthermore, there are two different issues at stake. The 1970 decision regarded the arbitrary ending of benefits without due process. I wouldn’t agree with that now, even after welfare reform.
However, states and the federal government have always had the right to make receipt of welfare contingent upon certain qualifications. Being drug-free is a reasonable qualification, given that welfare is supposed to be transitory, and people on drugs don’t have great employment prospects.
I’m sure you won’t have any trouble backing up your claim with case law.
The case you posted rests on the fact that it’s an entitlement. Says so right at the beginning.
So, no.
Just came across this – something called Progressive Choice – “FLORIDA DESERVES A REAL PROGRESSIVE AS GOVERNOR” – “HELP EXPOSE CONSERVATIVE CHARLIE CRIST.”
“Paid for by Progressive Choice, www.ProgressiveChoiceFlorida.com, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” Well, on the one hand, I can believe that, because no progressive is running for governor this year, so what’s the point of it? OTOH, I have a hard time believing neither the Scott campaign nor the GOP has anything to do with it.
Possibly, but that’s quite an assumption. I’m sure there are many progressive groups opposed to Charlie Crist. He’s a REPUBLICAN. Duh.
That doesn’t mean the Scott campaign or the GOP aren’t behind it, because none of the real progressive groups have money. But I do know that in Florida, most of my liberal friends and co-workers see Crist only as a means to an end. They’d rather have someone like Wasserman-Schultz, who flirted with the idea of running.
Also, the only reason Republicans would get behind a liberal primary challenge to Crist would be if they felt a liberal couldn’t win. That’s also the only reason why liberals would avoid backing a challenge to Crist, is because they knew a liberal couldn’t beat Rick Scott.
How did you not hear? IOW: Duh.
PCF appears to be a “real” liberal PAC that is “not coordinating with” the Nan Rich campaign, rather than a front for Republican efforts.
I agree with adaher’s point about Crist. I won’t exactly be holding my nose when I campaign for him, but he’s hardly my ideal candidate. He’s not a Republican anymore, though, and he’s made a Big Deal about how the Republican Party is no longer for him.
As governor, he was hardly an arch conservative, but he was well within the GOP mainstream as it was during the Bush years.
if that’s now all right to Democrats, it says a lot about how far to the right the Republicans have moved the country.
Or Florida, at any rate. Compare California, where Schwarzenegger – no conservative – counts as a Pub.
True. California used to be in play for the GOP back in the day.
No, it only says a lot about how far to the right the Republicans have moved, period.
Then why are the Democrats jumping in bed with a Bush Republican? That’s the Democratic mainstream in Florida now?
Because he’s a popular former governor with broad cross-aisle appeal, and they really hate Rick Scott. The state’s demographics suggest that we’re moving left rather than right. Crist has certainly moved left since he was governor. Crist is now pro-gay marriage, even though he voted for the state constitutional ban in 2008. He’s only ever really been conservative on crime, anyway.
Bad enough, IMO. The criminal law in this state is way too strict and harsh. But I’ll still vote for him.
Crist has no opinions on the issues. He says whatever people want to hear. What Crist does care about is good government, and that’s to his credit and why I might support him. But I defy anyone to really consider Crist truly an ideological figure. He’s the opposite of ideological. Unless he needs to woo voters.
You were making a point of defining him as a “Bush Republican” just a couple of posts ago. What changed?
Bush said whatever people wanted to hear, but he never gave a rat’s ass for “good government.”
Better the cynic than the fiend.
That’s what his record is. I dont think rational people favor campaign words over what someone has actually done.