Devastating: Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Will Speak at Democratic Convention

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012

Devastating to Barack Obama, that is.

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist says he’s backing Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race.

The former Republican made the announcement in an op-ed piece published in Sunday’s Tampa Bay Times. The endorsement came as Republicans are gathering in the Tampa Bay area for the GOP convention. It also came amid preparations statewide for Tropical Storm Isaac.

Crist left the Republican Party during his unsuccessful bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and is currently registered as having no party affiliation. He was elected governor of Florida as a Republican in 2006.

Yes, that “unsuccesful” bid, where as a sitting governor he netted a whopping 30% of the vote and lost by 18% to Marco Rubio.

So after being humiliated in the general election by Rubio, Crist has decided to take his marbles and endorse President Obama. Hmm, where have we seen this act before? A person’s ambitions for greater glory are thwarted, and he decides to simply switch allegiances in an effort to suck up to Barack Obama. I really feel like I’ve seen this play out before. Hmmm.

Crist will be speaking at the Democratic convention in Charlotte. I’m sure the Democrats are excited that a former Republican governor will be addressing their convention. Actually, they’re probably excited that anyone is speaking at their convention at this point.

As for Crist’s endorsement, it is interesting that the man who once claimed that Sarah Palin was more qualified to be president than Barack Obama is now endorsing the latter. What changed Crist’s mind? Well, let’s look at his op-ed

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Devastating: Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Will Speak at Democratic Convention

  • I’m not sure who the DNC thinks this will sway. Here in Florida folks on the right (and a lot in the center) dislike Crist because he was a sore loser, and folks on the left dislike him because his refusal to get out of the race in 2010 effectively torpedoed Kendrick Meek’s campaign. Until that point Meek was considered an up-and-coming star in the Florida Dem party and his loss to both Rubio *and* Crist tainted him here. Sorry Charlie has stepped on a lot of toes here.

  • Oh, and I should mention that he now works for the local ambulance chasers, so he’s not exactly done anything stellar recently to endear himself to the public.

  • In 2008, Charlie said that Sarah Palin is more qualified han barry Soetoro to be president. And, he was right.

    What’s Charlie gonna say now?

    Roger Kimball: “High up along one wall at the Forum is a huge digital display on which the federal debt ticks its way toward $16 trillion. That by itself ought to be enough to assure the defeat of Barack Obama, but in really it is merely one data point in a litany of failure. . . . By any factual measure, I said, Obama’s administration had been an extraordinary failure. Median household income had plummeted nearly 5 percent since 2009, the year Obama promised that, if only Congress would approve the stimulus package, he would have the unemployment rate down to 5.6 percent by now, the summer of 2012, by which time he would also have halved the annual deficit. Et very much cetera. The only promise I can think of that Obama has kept is to make energy prices ‘skyrocket.’ That he has well and truly accomplished.”

  • I hadn’t thought about Charlie Crist in years, so my mind read that headline as “Chris Christie Endorses…”. *That* was confusing.

  • A person’s ambitions for greater glory are thwarted, and he decides to simply switch allegiances in an effort to suck up to Barack Obama. I really feel like I’ve seen this play out before. Hmmm.

    I had to process this for a moment to get it, but it also reminded me of that wife-killing Schiavo guy who campaigned with various Dems in the mid-terms and he was like the kiss of death and people asked him to stay home.

  • I was an EMHC at a funeral for a Tampa cop a few years ago. The Governor was there with other political luminaries and was in the communion line of one of my friends. He approached and tried to grab the Precious Body from the ciboria. My friend covered the ciboria and stepped back. She said “Governor, only Catholics can partake.” He became quite indignant and offended and said, “Is that so?!” and hurriedly walked away. Now as a politician you know he’s been to Catholic funerals, but I suppose perhaps he’s never been refused before and didn’t know better, but his reaction was quite telling.

  • Yes, a simple, “Oh I’m very sorry, I didn’t know,” would have been sufficient and sensible, but pride prevents such things.

  • Crist gives two faced opportunistic weasel politicians a bad name.

  • I see others already commented on the comparison Crist had made once upon a time between Sarah Palin and Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed, Gov Palin would have made a far better President that the Teflon coated jerk who currently sits in the Oval Office.

  • Devastating: Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, the national average price of gasoline was $1.87 per gallon. Today, it’s near $4.00 per gallon.

  • it’s upsetting that Obama got Crists’ endorsement but I’ve never really liked Crist because he doesn’t listen to the people. back in high school i wrote a letter to him about some laws that needed to be reviewed. (and still do i might add) and i had called his office three times. with the letter i got a mailed-out response basically saying ‘thanks for your concern but your underage you can’t do anything about it.’ in truth i was fifteen. but i had a problem with the Florida school system so if i didn’t talk to him when i was STILL IN SCHOOL then i would’ve gotten a letter stating ‘thanks for your concern but where are you in relation to this?’ i called his office three times in one week and each and every time he couldn’t take a call from me. okay; he’s a politician he’s gotta be a busy guy right? well i left my name and number for them and i didn’t get a call about my problem. but i did get a call next week from his office telling me not to call them ever again because i was bothering them. i didn’t call- but i did send an e-mail to the man telling him what i thought about that as a citizen. i got a call two days later from the legislator of Reading in Florida telling me Crist went to his office and told him personally to call me and he read my original letter to the senator, and my e-mail. he was nice about it but he told me that at the moment there was just nothing in his power to do.i have nothing against the legislator of reading (as i had already KNEW he could not help me which is why i went to Crist.) so knowing this- yes- THIS is the type of man I’m going to trust and follow who I’m going to vote for. 😛

  • thank you for writing this

    honestly, this is part of why the phony Democratic nostalgia for dead Republicans (to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg) is so annoying to me: the two parties, to my knowledge, have generally been ideologically consistent since the ’80s. sure, new issues have come up (even certain liberal Democrats may’ve looked at you funny if you’d suggested same-sex marriage to them in the ’80s) and old issues have died (Cold War) but the general themes are the same. and the rewriting of Reagan as someone who’d be too “moderate” for today’s GOP, when if you look back at it he was villified for the same nefarious Southern strategy/not caring about blacks/not caring about poor people/not caring about AIDS/etc. etc. stuff libs still hurl at the Republicans today (well OK, maybe not AIDS,) is just dumb, also considering he was the most conservative Republican president of the post-WWII era.

    i’ll admit, conservatives play this game too sometimes, but at least they reach back as far as JFK so it makes marginally more sense (Rachel Maddow saying she agrees with the “Eisenhower platform,” while goofy-sounding/silly since if she lived then she’d likely consider him an Evil ’50s Conformist, similarly i can at least take a little more seriously since he’s a relatively nonideological president in the scheme of things.) well i suppose Bubba Clinton gets props for his compromises sometimes too, not a sentiment i really share though.

    sry, rambling.

  • i suppose you could say the _emphasis_ on certain issues has changed — i don’t recall a Reagan speech like the one Buchanan gave at the 1992 Convention for instance. but changing emphases is a bit different than changing substance.

  • i agree that the GOP has been pretty consistent since the 1980s. The only example regarding a more rigid GOP might be the loathsome Grover Norquist’s pledge. Reagan appreciated the art of compromise, even if he never lost sight of the ideal. People like Norquist make it impossible. A budget deal that includes massive entitlement cuts combined with a small tax increase would likely not secure GOP support because of Norquist.

  • While I was never remotely a member of “Buchanan’s Brigade,” I have long thought that the conventional wisdom surrounding his 1992 convention speech was inaccurate and unfair. Here is the text. Decide for yourselves.

    http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/1992/campaign.92/buchanan-RNC-.txt

  • I dislike the Grover Norquist pledge for a different reason. It enabled congressional Republicans during the Bush administration to offer their constituents a “best of both worlds” approach to governance: federal-funded pork without a tax increase.

    We can’t do this forever. We can’t keep passing the bill on to future taxpayers on the premise that growth and economic recovery will flood the federal coffers with enough money to pay off the debt. I don’t doubt that works for small, manageable debts, but there has to be limit, some point of no return. Our nation’s workforce is growing with the population, but I suspect not enough to keep up with the debts.

    So, as Mike P. suggests, perhaps small tax increases might be one way toward fiscal responsibility, but that is not what I am not after right now. Right now, I would like the threat of a tax increase to use against any Republican who refuses to abstain pork barrel spending for his or her own district. Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge stands in the way of that.

    The problem with my approach (sorry for the run on), is that this is viewed by many voters as the equivalent of “unilateral disarmament” against Democrats who promise spending (within the district) and taxes (on other people). That’s just tough. If you are not principled, that is, you are not preprared to lose, then don’t run for office.

  • i actually love Buchanan’s speech as a piece of rhetoric for how brutal it is (contrast with the relatively generic Romney speech…of course he’s the nominee and you obviously don’t expect speeches like that from them,) wasn’t critiquing it. i have no idea if the CW was right about it being a net negative for Bush-Quayle cuz i was five at the time lol.

  • Mary, I did delete your comment. Not only was it not germane at all to this thread, it was based on something that is simply not true.

  • So, the Dems got Orange Crist. The GOP got Artur Davis, the co-chair of the 2008 Obama campaign.

    Since I had CSPAN and not MSNBC or CNN on, I got to watch Artur Davis speak at the RNC.

    I know who came out ahead in that trade.

Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

Wednesday, May 19, AD 2010

The boycott that Los Angeles is imposing on Arizona has its first victim, the city of Los Angeles itself.

The state of Arizona is about to strike back at L.A. again to defend itself.

A letter written by one of the commissioners of the Arizona Corporate Commission is telling Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be ready to accept the consequences of his actions:

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

Basically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bluff has been called.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

  • So silly on the part of L.A. and California… a state that one day soon might have to be bailed out by the U.S. government, in part funded by Arizona taxpayers! Frankly the best thing to happen to California is bankruptcy at this point…

    Perhaps if California did not have such outlandish welfare services they would not have severe budget and immigration issues of their own.

  • Man, if only CA would have used those billions of dollars of bond money to gain complete independence from the rest of the nation instead of building huge, inefficient new embryonic stem cell research labs, maybe they wouldn’t be so affected by AZ’s actions.

    As it is, the fact that the silliness has gone as far as it has is worrying.

  • You probably could be right.

    A bankruptcy would be beneficial.

    It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    And maybe, just maybe, they’ll vote responsible, fiscally conservative politicians into office.

  • When I first read the letter, I thought it was just chest-beating, but now I’m not so sure. I’m sure it would be a last resort, and there would no doubt be serious repercussions, but it is a delight to imagine. For the moment, I think the commissioner is just telling L.A., “Watch it! We can you hurt you!”, and pointing out the city’s hypocrisy in thinking they can start boycott on their terms alone, without any reverse consequenses..

  • Joseph,

    I think you’re right.

    He’s putting L.A. on notice, though the mayor is not balking, so it’ll be interesting how this plays out.

  • It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    Actually, it’s more of a schizoid situation. We routinely vote in restrictions on new taxes or introduce tax breaks while at the same time voting for expensive projects like high-speed rail.

  • Good for AZ! I read an article the other day too that AZ travelers are canceling plans to destinations that have called for similar ridiculous boycotts, like San Diego. The response? “Oh, its just local politics, please don’t hurt our economy by canceling your plans!”

    What pathetic, whining, sniveling cowards. I hope AZ sticks to every last one of them and makes them pay for the slanders, their race-baiting, their hatred and their ignorance. Teach them humility, Arizona!

  • BTW, Tito, have you seen Archbishop Chaput’s take on the Arizona law?

    http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3858

    It’s very good, and quite balanced.

  • Meanwhile, in a country where one-in-six workers is unemployed or under-employed, the undertaker-in-chief fetes in the white house a man mainly responsible for stealing millions of American jobs and almost bankrupting hundreds of municipalities.

    Truth IS stranger than fiction.

  • JohnH,

    That was a good article.

    Archbishop Chaput for prelate of America!

  • Boycotts are blunt instruments that hurt the innocent with the guilty. I would not support cutting off existing business with Arizona but I would support boycotting any new business. I hope sports leagues blacklist Arizona. I’d love to see New York’s Arizona iced tea company change its name in protest. I want Arizona to learn that the rest of America stands in solidarity with those who are unjustly discriminated against. I want Arizona to learn that the bishops of Arizona know better than bigots about what’s right and wrong.

  • RR,

    The rest of America?

    Over 60% of American’s agree with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.

  • I still want to know what the “flaw” is.

  • Restrained,

    It will be we who teach you that false claims about bigotry will be met with the contempt and disgust that they deserve.

  • The Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power doesn’t merely buy electricity from AZ, it is a part OWNER of two electrical generating plants there. We are only using what we own – this guy needs to get his facts straight.

    When did Christianity become so xenophobic. Do you think Jesus gave a rat’s behind where someone was born (sorry, no loaves and fishes for you – you were born on the wrong side of a man-made line)

  • What in the world is xenophobic about reguiring Mexicans to obey American immigration laws if they wish to live in America? Is it xenophobic of Mexico to expect that Americans will obey Mexican immigration laws if they wish to live in Mexico?

  • You don’t get it, Don. You see, we’re all racists and we don’t know it yet.

    Thankfully, we have MSNBC to let us know what horrible people we are on the inside.

    What Mexicans (legal and illegal for that matter) really should be angry about is how they’re used as political pawns by American politicians. That might ACTUALLY be sort of racist.

    A nation that cannot defend and protect its own physical integrity ceases to be a nation. Americans are perfectly within their rights to expect their state or federal government to enforce the border, and not use it as a backhanded means to manipulate demographics and election outcomes.

  • No Power is about to be shut off to California. I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway. Regardless I have to imagine that all sort of things comeinto play here such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce cause. I also have to imagine since so much of our power comes from all the over place there is already Fed regulation on this

  • “I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway.”

    Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.

  • It’s as if they’re saying, “wait, people are taking us seriously? Our words actually mean something?”

  • Liberals are conflating Christianity with “Ali Baba and the 40,000,000 Thieves.”

    I love and pray for all the cloistered marxists that call yourselves social justice advocates.

    Woe unto him who calls evil good.

    PS: If I believed they would comprehend “Marxist/Leninism”, I’d have used that term insetad of “Ali Baba.”

  • “Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.”

    I just think escalting this is nonsense especially in these bad economic times. People I think will move on from this issue if given time. We have short attentions spans. Also the fact that it appears that

    People actually think AZ can do this is annoying

    That people seem to think it is proper for State to engage in a war with each other
    (Can Louisiana shut off the pipelines of oil and natural gas if we get bad?)

    That people that are proclaiming themselves Federalist think this is a great idea. I MEAN I AM SEEING PEOPLE ACTUALLY wanting this to happen. Why? Because of what some yahoos on the LA City Council did?

    Personally in these days I would prefer that our military assets in San Diego are able to have the lights on.

    This just seems all counterproductive and gets us no where to solving the problem.

  • I guess again it highlights that cities boycotting AZ is also wrong and gets us nowhere. Only punishes hard working people in AZ including the military in Yuma. Really needs to stop.

  • Yeah, the problem is NOT the pushback from the AZ politicians, but the fact that these city governments around the country are engaging in symbolic boycotts.

    Wanna boycott AZ? Then boycott ALL that comes from AZ, even if it means you have to, you know, ACTUALLY make some sacrifices.

    Seriously, the “escalation” isn’t coming from the AZ politicians defending themselves, it’s coming from the grandstanding a-holes threatening to wreck the AZ economy by fomenting a nationwide boycott of the state.

  • Bingo Phillip. All the people of LA have to do is to have their cretinous leaders swallow some crow and simply state that upon reflection maybe calling for a boycott of Arizona wasn’t such a brilliant idea after all.

  • The point is jh that the WHOLE THING is nonsense. LA calls for a boycott in these harsh times and that isn’t irresponsible? That those “yahoos” on the city council are now having to deal with the consequences of their actions is refreshing. Too many politicians shoot their mouths off without regard for the consequences. It’s time they felt the results of their actions.

  • Is a boycott even constitutional? Maybe yes because of freedom of speech. Maybe no because of the interstate commerce clause. Any opinions?

  • Centinel:
    I think boycotts by individuals are generally first amendment protected, but government acts would have to be evaluated under dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.

  • Government boycotts would fall under the market participation exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Bought

Monday, December 21, AD 2009

It seems like one thing that nearly anyone on any side of the political spectrum should be able to agree on is that Senator Nelson extracting a provision for the federal government to foot the entire unfunded liability for Medicaid in the state of Nebraska (and for no other state) in perpetuity as the cost of his agreeing to support the current Senate health care bill compromise is reprehensible in the extreme.

One would like to think that such decisions would be made, in a Republic, based on a senator’s understanding of whether a bill was actually good for the country as a whole — not based on bribery. Senator Nelson should be ashamed of himself, and so should the Senate leadership which agreed to provide such a buy-off.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Bought

  • Senator Nelson has no shame. He will sleep like a baby tonight. As has Fr. Jenkins since last spring.

    Have we finally learned that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat?

  • While I have respect for almost all of the writers and most of the commenters on this site, DarwinCatholic tends to be the most measured and least hyperbolic.

    That is why this post is a damning indictment of the corrupted manifest in Congress, with a particular regard to the so-called health care reform bill.

  • A few clarifications regarding this “deal” :

    It pays for MedicAID, not MediCARE. It apparently provides 100 percent federal funding for all people CURRENTLY covered by Medicaid in Nebraska (those earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level for their household size) for the next 10 years or so. This includes not only low-income children and families, but also a large number of elderly people in nursing homes who go on Medicaid after they have exhausted their life savings to pay for their care. The 133 percent ceiling is a federal rule that has been in place for a long time so I don’t think this really qualifies as an “expansion” of Medicaid.

    Normally, the feds only provide 50 percent of the funding for Medicaid; the state ponies up the rest. Under the federal stimulus bill some states (Illinois is one of them) are getting up to 62 percent federal match through 2010. I don’t know if Nebraska is one of them; it depends on factors such as high unemployment, etc.

    All that being said, it’s still a blatant sellout and hopefully Nebraskans opposed to this will not forget when Sen. Nelson comes up for reelection.

  • Thanks for the correction, Elaine — my fault for writing a post in the evening based on a news story I’d read in the morning without pulling the newspaper out of the recycle pile in order to get the details right. I’ve corrected the post, so as not to spread mis-information.

  • One would like to think that such decisions would be made, in a Republic, based on a senator’s understanding of whether a bill was actually good for the country as a whole

    That’s not how our system is set up. As a geographically segregated republic, we elect our senators to look out for the interests of our individual states.

    Politics is bribery. Sen. Nelson is hardly the first, the last, nor the most notorious. This stuff goes on every day. Blame the system.

  • I’m shocked, shocked! to hear that there are earmarks in this bill. Oh, wait. “earmarks” was last year’s five minute hate. Didn’t Mary Landrieu get $300,000,000 for Louisiana as her bribe to vote yes?

  • Politics is bribery. Sen. Nelson is hardly the first, the last, nor the most notorious. This stuff goes on every day. Blame the system.

    Don’t hate the playa. Hate the game.

  • I recognize this is a very common way to get support for a bill, but I don’t think its commonality makes it any more excusable. And in that regard, I fully support attempting to shame those who play the game as an attack on the game as a whole.

    Especially when such a major change (to the extent that this debacle even remains a major change at this point) is government policy is being contemplated, I’d like to see it handled on the merits.

  • One of the complaints characters like Eleanor Smeal had against sundry politicians was that they were unwilling to wheel and deal for her pet cause (the ‘Equal Rights Amendment’). I think it was the Governor of Illinois who replied that for the opposition it was a matter of conscience too, and ‘you don’t trade a constitutional amendment for a job or a bridge’. Maybe now you do.

  • It’s kinda like attacking designated hitters as an attack on the DH rule.

  • I figured it was more like attacking someone for holding the record in stealing base the most times…

  • I have to say, while I think RR has a point in general, Senator Nelson’s actions do seem to go above and beyond even what is typical for this sort of political bribery.

  • You might describe it as the difference between a guy who cheats on his wife and a guy who brings his mistress to Thanksgiving dinner.

  • But he only brought his mistress because his wife said he could.

    If anything, the conduct of the other 59 senators should be more objectionable. Nelson did his job. He was just looking out for his constituents. The others are supposed to keep him in check. They didn’t look out for their own constituents.

  • If anything, the conduct of the other 59 senators should be more objectionable. Nelson did his job. He was just looking out for his constituents. The others are supposed to keep him in check. They didn’t look out for their own constituents.

    I agree in part. Thing is, the whole reason Nelson mattered in this was that he had been an advocate for both the unborn and much of Obamacare. If he was convinced that the Senate abortion provision was genuine and effective, he would have no need to be bribed. It is said that every man has his price, but I don’t believe it’s true in the least. Unfortunately, it seems to hold true for anyone with political ambition.

    Worse yet, and I know this isn’t technically fair, now I find myself seriously doubting the efforts made by Stupak and company. How do we know that they’re just not holding out for largess from the public trough? Put less cynically, how do we know that they’re principled stand can’t succumb to the Democratic party’s carrots?

    Also, this highlights why many of us avoid voting for Democrats at any level above dog-catcher. There is such a thing as party politics and they play a big part on what individual members do. It seems there’s a better chance of getting a pro-abort Republican to vote for life than there is getting a pro-life Democrat to. Both have room to vote their convictions as long as their vote is of no consequence to the party. However, when it’s a tight vote and the whips start cracking, the Dems usually turn coat and vote their party’s inhuman line.

  • The difference between a famous golfer’s…um…friends and Senator Nelson is that the golfer’s friends would be insulted to be compared to Senator Nelson.

  • Art Deco — which “governor of Illinois” are you referring to?

    If this had to do with the ERA issue then the governor in question would probably have been James R. Thompson, a Republican, elected four times and in office from 1977 to 1991.

    Thompson was not above wheeling, dealing, and arm twisting to get what he wanted — one of his most famous stunts was literally stopping the clock in the General Assembly chambers at just before midnight on the day they were supposed to adjourn, to insure that a critical vote to fund a new Chicago White Sox stadium (and keep them from moving to Florida) passed “on time”.

    If Thompson really did say that, then it would indicate that even he recognized there were limits to political horse trading, which unfortunately some of his successors have failed to recognize. Or maybe it was somebody else who said that after all.