Charlie Crist Endorses Obama, Condemns Party That Rejected Him

The former Republican governor of Florida says his former party is so extreme that it holds positions he held two years ago.

Charlie Crist, whose quarter century as a Republican politician included a term as governor of Florida, is endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for re-election.

An an op-ed for today’s Tampa Bay Times, he writes,

I’ve studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I’ve watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I’ve seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I’m confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

That’s a rather tepid rationale. Later, he explains,

As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.

But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they’ve proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.

The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.

The problem with that is that, as recently as his failed run for the Republican nomination for US Senate in 2010, Charlie Crist supported these policies:

Crist supported capital punishment[24] and gun rights. In 2008 he signed a provision that prevents employers from prohibiting employees’ bringing firearms to the workplace, as long as the weapons are secure and individuals maintain a concealed carry license.[25][26]

His position on abortion issues is not clear-cut.[27] In 1998 Crist ran for Senate as a pro-choice candidate,[27] and has stated that he opposes overturning Roe vs. Wade.[27][28] Crist has said that he opposes a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before a woman can undergo an abortion.[27] In the 2010 Senate campaign, Crist first presented himself a pro-life Republican[29] but after he lost the Republican nomination and became an unaffiliated candidate, had all pro-life statements removed from his website.[30] On June 11, 2010 Crist vetoed a bill which would have removed taxpayer funding for abortion,[31] as well as require a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion.[32]

Crist supported efforts to ban same-sex marriage in Florida, and supported the current ban on adoption by homosexual prospective parents – saying that a “traditional family provides the best environment for children.”[33][34] His position led gay rights groups to protest the passage of the Florida Amendment 2 (now Article 1 Section 27 of the Florida Constitution) ban on same-sex marriage during his wedding in 2008.[35][36] He shifted in June 2010, when he stated that he no longer supported Florida’s ban on same-sex adoption: “A better way and approach would be to let judges make that decision on a case-by-case basis.”[37]

Note that Crist’s evolution on the issues mysteriously coincided with his decision in May 2010 to leave the Republican Party, which happened to coincide with him trailing Marco Rubio by 20 points in the polls. Crist addresses this tangentially in the op-ed:

Pundits looking to reduce something as big as a statewide election to a single photograph have blamed the result of my 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate on my greeting of President Obama. I didn’t stand with our president because of what it could mean politically; I did it because uniting to recover from the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes was more important than party affiliation. I stood with our nation’s leader because it was right for my state.

On that much, I take him at his word. I was dumbfounded that Florida Republicans so resoundingly rejected Crist, who by all accounts served the state ably as Education Commissioner, Attorney General, and Governor. But 2010 was a Tea Party wave election and Marco Rubio was an especially charismatic standard bearer of that movement. Still, one understands Crist’s bitterness.

People evolve. I’m not as conservative as I was a decade ago and the Republican Party is more conservative than it was even four years ago. And it’s certainly possible that Crist was always more moderate than his public stances on the social issues indicated; certainly, he was a moderate on other issues, including the environment. But this endorsement looks to be motivated by personal bitterness rather than any principled evolution.

It’s also especially odd that Mitt Romney is mentioned only as a passive actor, as if the United States had a parliamentary system. Romney hasn’t been in Washington the last four years; it’s odd to endorse his opponent on the grounds that Congressional Republicans have been obstructionist.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Hello World! says:

    I think Mitt Romney has adequately supported the positions of the republican congress and even taken part in some of the more ridiculous aspects of republicanism, like birtherism, to justify Crists endorsement. Believe me, I’m not happy with either party but republicans have been courting a voting block that really brings politics to a new level of ideocracy.

  2. Lomax says:

    “2016” movie tops at box office (WSJ)
    “Theaters packed for 2016 movie!”

  3. Fiona says:

    I’m not at all surprised Crist would endorse Obama. Romney has embraced the far-right of the Republican Party, twisting himself like a pretzel to get elected. If Crist was looking to endorse the candidate with some small bit of character, it’s certainly not the Mittster. Sour grapes? Maybe. But to me, it’s far more likely Crist feels like there’s no place left for him in the increasingly rabid right wing party the Republicans have become.

  4. Stephen1947 says:

    “2016” will be #4, at best, for its opening weekend. The last 2 weeks of August, like the entire month of January, are good times to dump movies on the market that have little potential, because their share of a smaller audience earns a higher percentage.

  5. Phillip says:

    @James Joyner:

    I’m not as conservative as I was a decade ago and the Republican Party is more conservative than it was even four years ago.

    The Republicans have lost the notion of conservativism, they are purely a reactionary party at this point. I’ve little doubt you’ve become less conservative over the years, but to call the Republican party more conservative is to pretend the last sixty years never took place. They’re trying to conserve something that was lost long ago, and wishing it back won’t stem the tide that they fear.

  6. Tsar Nicholas says:

    The Grapes of Sour.

    That aside, from a Machiavellian standpoint this makes a lot of sense. Obviously Crist has no chance of winning another elected office. He’s a man without a party. Hell, has any major politician lost by such overwhelming margins two separate times in the same overall election cycle, as Crist in ’10 managed to accomplish? Geez. So to the extent he has any political future it’s been relegated to appointed positions. Well, if Romney wins then for Crist there won’t be any cabinet posts or ambassadorships. But if Obama wins reelection it’s not difficult to envision Crist getting tapped for something or another. Hence the Obama endorsement.

  7. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Crist was OK, Rubio was better. Politics tends to be Darwinian.

    And Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Artur Davis were not available for comment.

  8. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    And Crist’s shock — shock! — at the abortion plank: hasn’t that been in the platform since time immemorial?

  9. Unfortunately, your “tepid rational” relies on “the obstruction,” and as much as you think it odd to pick a candidate in opposition to that, I think it’s much, much, worse to endorse it.

    The Republicans have been obstructionist and anti-democratic and do not deserve a win.

  10. Speaking of obstruction, how many times have we been told (even in these pages) that taxing the rich won’t help?

    CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost $1 Trillion

  11. James Joyner says:

    @john personna: But, again, while that might make sense in a parliamentary context, it doesn’t in a presidential one. Romney hasn’t been in a position to obstruct. And electing Romney would actually solve the problem of Republican obstructionism! Granted, we’d then be treated to Democratic obstructionism, but that’s a merry-go-round that’s going to be hard to stop.

  12. I think you make a false distinction between a partisan system and a parliamentary one. Especially given that the same funding sources back the obstructionists and the Presidential candidate.

    Is it that hard to see your solution as surrender? Really?

    Given in, you say, complete the plan, and everything will be fine.

  13. BTW, the Republican assurance that Democrats will be just as vile as they have been isn’t really a high ground argument. And certainly it is not a sure thing.

    We might hope that a split government would have to get down to work, that the fiscal cliff demands it.

  14. pcbedamned says:

    @Phillip:

    They’re trying to conserve something that was lost long ago…

    No, they are not trying to ‘conserve’ something – they are throwing a giant Temper Tantrum. Screaming ‘no’ at the top of their lungs, and name calling not only your president, but any and all who do not agree with their wants, is typical 3 year old behaviour. Anyone who has ever raised a defiant toddler knows, you do not give in to the behaviour – you have to ignore it and remove them from the situation causing said tantrum. You cannot reason with a toddler – nor it seems can one reason with what now constitutes the American Republican Party. They have turned into the bratty kids you see in the grocery store who you silently scream at the parent to give them a good ol’ smack on the ass…

  15. Shorter James: “Pay the hostage takers.”

  16. James Joyner says:

    @john personna: No, no: What I’m saying is that, if you generally prefer the Republican platform over the Democratic one, the fact that the Republican Congress behaved like obstructionist jerks strikes me as an odd rationale to vote against Mitt Romney. If you’re ideologically neutral, perhaps, “punish the bad behavior” might make sense. But Crist was a pretty hard core Republican as recently as the spring of 2010.

  17. If you’re ideologically neutral, perhaps, “punish the bad behavior” might make sense.

    As one independent, I hope to Heaven that the other swing voters feel the same way.

    (I actually think a Republican looking for “party transformation” should vote the same way.)

  18. Phillip says:

    the fact that the Republican Congress behaved like obstructionist jerks strikes me as an odd rationale to vote against Mitt Romney

    You’re so very kind to congressional republicans James, but they didn’t behave like obstructionist jerks. They campaigned on promises they couldn’t keep, have focused like a laser on purely social issues (with an Obamacare repeal in between each vote), and refuse to move on important legislation until we pay the ransom (vote out Obama).

    Admit it; they’ll block any action, regardless of its content or importance to the nation, if it has any chance of making the President look good. Which means, if he has to sign it into law, they’ll just have to try to block everything. That is obstructing. Saying they’re behaving like obstructionist jerks suggests that their behavior is a consequence of some other motive, but obstruction is the goal, obstruction is the feature, and obstruction is the penalty we pay for electing a black President.

  19. al-Ameda says:

    I have to admit, Republican changeover politicians are more reasonable than Democratic changeover politicians. Just compare the angry bitter vituperative dyspeptic and somewhat incapacitated Zell Miller with Charlie Crist.

  20. al-Ameda says:

    @James Joyner:

    And electing Romney would actually solve the problem of Republican obstructionism!

    Well there you go, that’s the De Facto GOP Campaign Message:

    “Give us back control of the federal government and we’ll stop obstructing and behaving badly.”

  21. mattb says:

    @Phillip:

    Saying they’re behaving like obstructionist jerks suggests that their behavior is a consequence of some other motive, but obstruction is the goal, obstruction is the feature, and obstruction is the penalty we pay for electing a black Democratic President.

    Ok, this is exactly the point where liberals go over the top on race issues. While I am sure that some of the resistance does have to do with Mr Obama’s skin color, the question is whether or not it’s the primary reason.

    Looking back to the vitriol and witch hunts of the Clinton administration, and the shacking that Republicans took in 2006 and 2008, I tend to think that regardless of the skin color of the president, as long as he had a “D” next to his name, the chances are that Mitch McConnell and company would have still have used largely the same strategy of obstructionism.

    I mean, given everything, do you seriously think that the current crop of Republicans would have embraced a white male democratic president (because, let’s face it, it Hillary had won, then it would have been “female” instead of black)?

  22. @mattb:

    I agree.

  23. mattb says:

    @James Joyner:

    And electing Romney would actually solve the problem of Republican obstructionism! Granted, we’d then be treated to Democratic obstructionism, but that’s a merry-go-round that’s going to be hard to stop.

    Actually, it seems to me that if the concern is “obstructionism” then electing Romney would actually hurt the situation, namely because it will “prove” that the opposition party can win the White House (and take control of congress) by petulantly digging their heels in for four years and then running against a “do nothing” government.

    Whether out of spite or tactics, as you suggest, the democrats would be foolish not to learn this lesson.

    Now if Romney loses, one of two things will happen: (1) the Republicans will see that this was a failed strategy and take up a different approach, or (2) they will double down and we’ll be treated to a hyper level of obstructionism that will, I expect burn itself and the party out.

  24. al-Ameda says:

    @mattb:

    Looking back to the vitriol and witch hunts of the Clinton administration, and the shacking that Republicans took in 2006 and 2008, I tend to think that regardless of the skin color of the president, as long as he had a “D” next to his name, the chances are that Mitch McConnell and company would have still have used largely the same strategy of obstructionism.

    The fact is, the Republican Party has not accepted the last 2 elected Democratic presidents as legitimate. They spent 8 years trying to get rid of Bill Clinton by any means necessary, investigated him for 6 years and ultimately impeached him.

    Obama? Well, being Black certainly gave impetus to the Birther movement, which over 50% of Republicans still believe in. I’m surprised that the GOP House has not yet initiated impeachment proceedings against the President – I suppose they’re saving that for February 2013.

  25. Lit3Bolt says:

    @mattb:

    I agree with you on the race issue, mattb. Democrats and liberals like to believe that all Republicans are Old South Confederate Flag wavers, but the truth is there’s 40%-45% of Republicans everywhere in the United States, not just the South. The South drives and shapes much of the Republican party “policy,” but policies of bigotry, delusions of a theocratic state, and the promise of low, low taxes and zero regulation finds support everywhere, not just the South.

  26. elizajane says:

    @mattb:

    I completely agree that things would have been as bad or worse with Hilary Clinton as president. Indeed, I am ashamed to say that I voted for Obama in the primary in part because I could not bear the prospect of the Republicans eviscerating her. The misogyny was so glaring and repulsive already. It actually took the Republicans some time after the nomination of Obama to figure out a way to attack a black man without seeming entirely racist — it was quite interesting — whereas they never had a bit of trouble attacking Hilary in horribly misogynist terms. It demonstrated to me that in this country, racism really is less socially acceptable than misogyny, and needs to be masked much more carefully.
    Would they have accepted a white man? No, but drumming up hysterical hatred would have been a little bit harder.

  27. Jack Moss says:

    Right. Crist is a piece of work. He’s positioning himself for a position in O’s cabinet, but will likely get the kiss off. No politico wants to be around this guy, he’s as steady as one-legged dog on an ice rink. Crist wouldn’t know leadership if it hit him in the fanny. Leadership is taking charge and taking responsibility, something neither Crist or Obama does well at all.

    He’s now a registered independent. Might as well become a full fledged democrat, at least he has the propaganda down pat.

  28. No, Crist is positioning himself for a run for Governor in 2014

  29. Jack Moss says:

    Likely won’t win. In the 2010 Senate election, Crist ran as a sore-loser independent after it became obvious Rubio would win the GOP nomination. Exit polls showed that not only did Rubio overwhelmingly win the Republican vote (87% to 12% for Crist), but Rubio also won among independent voters (51% to 38%). Charlie is an “independent” who doesn’t appeal to independents, and actually got most of his votes from Democrats.

    So if he runs as a Democrat, he’d have to stand another onslaught of his evolutionary positions. As a Floridian, I’ll put it like this.

    Pick another state. No vacancies.

  30. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack Moss

    Leadership is taking charge and taking responsibility

    Cool. I am looking forward to Paul Ryan taking responsibility for his long string of votes for budget busting bills during the Bush era.

  31. al-Ameda says:

    @mattb:

    Whether out of spite or tactics, as you suggest, the democrats would be foolish not to learn this lesson.

    Just to be clear on this, if Romney wins the election are you saying that Democrats would be foolish to give Republicans the same level of cooperation that they were afforded by Republicans? Or are you saying that Democrats should cooperate fully with Republicans?

  32. Phillip says:

    @mattb: Would they have embraced a white Barack Obama? No more than they did Bill Clinton (and some did). While the rhetoric of Republican politicians was nearly as bad with Clinton, the reaction of their base of voters to the Clinton presidency was nothing like what we see today. Nor did the GOP have to resort to dog whistles. While Gingrich and Co. thundered thru the 90’s about what Clinton was doing to the presidency, the base did not react to that particular dog whistle. Please, compare polls, one asking how many think the President was foreign-born, and one asking how many think Clinton commited a crime in office.

    In the 90’s the politicians tried to steer the base. That particular relationship has completely reversed (engineered from within). I’m tired of pretending anymore. The majority of opposition to our president is based upon race. The proof is in the policies he’s pursued; he’s a conservative.

  33. Gustopher says:

    @James Joyner: The Republicans in congress took a routine vote on the debt limit, and created a financial crisis out of it that resulting in us coming within a hairs breadth of defaulting, and having our credit rating downgraded.

    That’s not good governance. And when their Presidential candidate taps as a VP one of the congress-critters who encouraged this, that definitely hangs the congress’s record around the Presidential candidate’s neck.

    Further, maybe Crist is opposed to destroying Medicare and replacing it with vouchers that don’t keep up with the costs. Florida has lots of old people, and Crist knows the challenges of dealing with old people.

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Gustopher: The Republicans in congress took a routine vote on the debt limit, and created a financial crisis out of it that resulting in us coming within a hairs breadth of defaulting, and having our credit rating downgraded.

    Senator Obama would beg to differ.

  35. al-Ameda says:

    @James Joyner:

    as Gustopher stated:

    The Republicans in congress took a routine vote on the debt limit, and created a financial crisis out of it that resulting in us coming within a hairs breadth of defaulting, and having our credit rating downgraded.

    I suppose we’ll see if the public is in the mood to reward the Republican Party by electing Romney and turning the Senate over to the GOP – the same people who are responsible for the obstructionism and bad behavior that the public says they disapprove of.

  36. Eric Florack says:

    Crist was simply another RINO, and so lost his berth… deservedly so.
    Should anyone think he endorsement is a big deal, other than Dems desperate to support a failed president and failed policies? And of course the press… but I repeat myself.

  37. rudderpedals says:

    Crist would have had a seat in the Senate if he’d managed to talk Meek out of the race. That’s actually why Rubio won. The accidental Senator.

    ISTM that if it’s Crist against Scott in 2014 then Crist walks away with it.

  38. dennis says:

    . . . it’s odd to endorse his opponent on the grounds that Congressional Republicans have been obstructionist.

    Be that as it may, Crist may be thinking of how Congress rubber-stamped everything GWB presented and wants to avoid doing the same. I’m all for loyal opposition; but what’s been coming (or NOT coming) out of Congress the past four years stinks. All this mayhem just to defeat one guy? Bringing the country on the brink of financial ruin? Race-baiting and pandering to the baser affections of the electorate?

    Hell, I barely recognize my own Republican friends anymore. I can imagine what they say behind closed doors when I’m not around.

  39. dennis says:

    @mattb:

    I agree with you matt; at the same time, you have to consider how they’ve used the race issue to push the rank-and-file completely over the edge. Birtherism, low-expectation bias, racial fear-mongering. It’s just a tool the GOP uses, and quite effectively, to its gain.

  40. superdestroyer says:

    @Phillip:

    How can a party that endorses trillion dollar budget deficits and federal spending at the $4 trillion be called a conservative party.

    As long as the establishment , country club Republicans like Romney and Crist endorse big deficits, big spending, big government, open borders, and social engineering , the Republicans will continue their collapse.

    Crist fails to understand that the U.S. does not need two big spending, big government parties. At least that is something the Tea Party types understand.

  41. superdestroyer says:

    @john personna:

    That is over 10 years, or less than 10% of the planned debt increase over the same time. And this is with every dollar being used for debt reduction instead of spending on new programs.

    You may want to go ask Bush I is all of the tax increase that cost him his presidency was all spent by the Democrats in Congress on deficit reduction or if was spent on new programs?

    The only way that tax hikes save borrowing as if the House or the Senate are controlled by Republicans and refuse to pass any new programs for the Democratic president.

  42. dennis says:

    @al-Ameda:

    The fact is, the Republican Party has not accepted the last 2 elected Democratic presidents as legitimate.

    This is what happens when the Party of God believes it has a holy mandate to be in charge of every government institution.

  43. dennis says:

    @Jack Moss:

    In the 2010 Senate election, Crist ran as a sore-loser independent . . .

    So according to your logic, Lisa Murkowski was a sore loser also? Lovely . . .

  44. superdestroyer says:

    @john personna:

    But you are not an independent unless you are actually willing to vote for both parties. Since you are really to the left of the current Democratic Party, should really should not call yourself an independent.

  45. anjin-san says:

    @ bithead

    but I repeat myself.

    Over, and over, and over, and over…

  46. @superdestroyer:

    I have no problem with that definition of independent.

    You what would be a real race for my vote? Obama versus Massachusetts Mitt. There would be a center-right contest against a center-left one.

    Too bad the GOP makes their moderates assume the position as part of the primary process.

  47. bandit says:

    Sore loser endorses loser.

  48. bandit says:

    @dennis: Good projection

    Obama 2012 agenda

    Demonize
    Racebaiting
    Hate

  49. dennis says:

    @bandit:

    Prove it.

  50. DRE says:

    Crist said:
    But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they’ve proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.
    You claim:
    Note that Crist’s evolution on the issues mysteriously coincided with his decision in May 2010 to leave the Republican Party, which happened to coincide with him trailing Marco Rubio by 20 points in the polls.

    But the only issue where the article you cite shows an evolution was Gay Rights, which does not appear to me to be among the issues he referred to. Aside from a weak attempt to pander by calling himself pro-life in 2010, he has always held moderate to liberal position on abortion rights and immigration. The fact that he feels a party that rejected him because of these moderate positions has become too extreme is hardly surprising, and reflects much more substance than “bitterness”.

  51. jukeboxgrad says:

    superdestroyer:

    Crist fails to understand that the U.S. does not need two big spending, big government parties. At least that is something the Tea Party types understand.

    What you fail to understand about what “the Tea Party types understand” is that they’re not actually against “big spending.” They’re only against it when it’s done by people they don’t like, for the benefit of people they don’t like.

    If they were actually against “big spending,” they would not have spent the years prior to 1/20/09 in a nap which ended abruptly on that day. If they were actually against “big spending,” they would not now be lining up behind Ryan, who supported all of Bush’s “big spending.”

    These “Tea Party types” are against “big government” except when they and their friends are in charge of the government.

  52. mattb says:

    @Phillip & @dennis:
    I agree that there’s a lot of racially based rhetoric and attack on this President (as there would have been sexist attack on Hillary). Not for a moment denying that. I’m simply saying that beyond the rheotric, when you get to the root cause, *most* (but not all of this) has far more to do with the “D” after Obama’s name.

    @al-Ameda:

    The fact is, the Republican Party has not accepted the last 2 elected Democratic presidents as legitimate.

    Correct, though it’s also fair to note that a lot of Democrats did not accept the legitimacy of either of GWB’s terms. And should Romney win this fall, many of those same Democrats will likewise not recognize his legitimacy.

    @al-Ameda: .

    Just to be clear on this, if Romney wins the election are you saying that Democrats would be foolish to give Republicans the same level of cooperation that they were afforded by Republicans?

    I was saying that, to some degree, the Democrats would be foolish (if they end up in the minority) if they don’t do exactly what the Republicans did to them. My point is that the Republicans will have “proven” petulant obstructionism is a viable path back to political control of the nation.

    To the degree that the Dems (a) want to take control because they believe they can better serve the nations and (b) object to most of the Republicans ideas, why shouldn’t they block everything in the same way the Republicans did? Not to mention the fact that I suspect that a bunch of them will be pissed that the obstructionist strategy worked out so well.

    I don’t think this will be the best thing for the nation, but until it blows up (either by failing to win at elections) or really damages the country (though it’s quite frankly hard to see how that actually happens), it’s probably the status quo for a while.

    @Lit3Bolt:

    The South drives and shapes much of the Republican party “policy,” but policies of bigotry, delusions of a theocratic state, and the promise of low, low taxes and zero regulation finds support everywhere, not just the South.

    Beyond this (and I say this as a lifelong northern) the “racist South” becomes a convenient scapegoat enabling the North to avoid examining it’s not so stellar record on race. The fact that there wasn’t the history of explicit slavery or segregation often proves a “get out of racist” crap for free card — and this definitely goes beyond just Republicans.

  53. Rob in CT says:

    should Romney win this fall, many of those same Democrats will likewise not recognize his legitimacy.

    I don’t think so, unless he wins in the sort of contested manner that brought Dubya to power in the 2000 election. Granted, I don’t know every Democrat, but everyone I knew accepted Dubya won the 2004 election. 2000 was a pretty special case (at the time, I was a total independent who figured Bush won ’cause SCOTUS said so and let’s move on).

    I do agree with you about what the Dems should (from a purely political standpoint) do if they lose: copy the GOP strategy that worked. I think it will be bad for the country in at least some ways.

  54. bill says:

    sour grapes make for bad whine charlie, get over yourself.

  55. Eric Florack says:

    @anjin-san: because the truth never changes.

  56. jukeboxgrad says:

    the truth never changes

    Bithead, you have a long track record here of telling lies (example). So hearing you whine about “the truth” is hysterical.

  57. Maxwell says:

    (alleged Memo found in trash can during Charlies rewrites)

    “Here’s why I’m backing Barack Obama”

    Because the Republicans ultimately chose Marco Rubio over me in the primaries, regardless how hard my good friend Jim Greer and I tried to steer the Florida Republican party decisions my way, it didn’t work. That forced me to seek support other ways, I became an Independent but didn’t get as much support as I had thought I would, so I traveled to Martha’s Vineyard to a secret meeting with President Obama and pledged my support to Democrats if they’d help me, I even publicly stated if elected I would caucus with Democrats, the tide turned in my favor and my friends in the media suggested I could help Democrats defeat Rubio and Meek had no chance (thanks Tampa Bay Times) When the Florida Democratic Party objected to the DNC supporting me over Kendrick Meek my deal got squashed and Bill Clinton was sent to Florida to campaign for Kendrick Meek and soothe the backlash the deal had caused, the dream was over. I soon found out that a third party candidate can not win an election in Florida, and I have no one but Democrats to turn to at this point. Now my deal with Obama is ‘on’ once again, and he’s willing to forgive all the horrible things I’ve said about him over the past couple of years, like how Sarah Palin was more qualified for President then Obama, how Obama was just another Jimmy Carter, ah.. I won’t go on for fear Obama didn’t hear all the trash I was talking.