April 2010

Florida Governor Charlie Crist showed today again that the race for US Senate to him is about nothing more than saving his political career. He left the Republican Party because he cannot win on the issues that conservative, Tea Party movement and moderates care about.

He is not thinking clearly if he believes that he can peel of enough voters from Republican candidate Marco Rubio and the leading Democrat candidate Kendrick Meeks. Who can trust a guy that said he was proud to run as a Republican a month ago and now leaves to run as an independent?

Crist is exactly the type of politician that the majority Americans are sick and tired of. He believes in nothing except his own political career. It is candidates like Crist that cause the Republican Party to lose in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Voters are too engaged to be fooled by Charlie Crist running under a new label.

Hot Air comments on Crist’s speech:

Turns out God wants him on the floor, to borrow a line from “Hoosiers,” and also that our political system, which was peachy keen six months ago when he was cruising to the Republican nomination, is now “broken.” You know, Frum made a good point in his post backing Rubio: When Lieberman went indie after losing the 2006 primary to Lamont, at least there were important policy differences at stake. There’s nothing at stake here except ambition. Quoth Jeb Bush, “I am not surprised. This decision is not about policy or principles. It is about what he believes is in his political self-interest.” Try to force yourself to the end or else you’ll miss him insisting that the way to set a “new tone” in D.C. is to send another transparently careerist principle-less politician to Capitol Hill. Works for me.

Marco Rubio responded this evening:

{ 1 comment }

This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who paid attention to the ObamaCare debate. But we didn’t get such frank explanations from Obama or his advisers before the passage of ObamaCare.

Obama’s Budget Director Peter Orszag explains how the new law sets up the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to limit how much we are allowed to spend on health care. Orszag smugly explains how they will be able to do this without any action from elected representatives. The IPAB is what Sarah Palin called a death panel.

ObamaCare replaces elected representatives with rule by the decree of unelected bureaucrats. This is another step towards ending constitutional government.

Watch Orszag (via Hot Air):

{ 1 comment }

Florida Governor Charlie Crist will announce Thursday that he is leaving the Republican Party to run as an independent for US Senate in November because he would lose the Republican primary to Marco Rubio.

Just a month ago, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Crist said that he was proud to be a Republican, would run as a Republican and would support the winner of the Republican primary.

This was just one month ago. Of course, no one who has followed Charlie Crist for a while will be surprised. Charlie’s promises come with an expiration date. In this respect he is just like Barack Obama.

In early 2009, Crist campaigned with President Obama in Florida in support of the $800 billion stimulus bill.

When asked about Obama’s stimulus in the fall of 2009, he flatly denied that he supported the stimulus to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “I didn’t endorse it, I didn’t even have a vote on the darn thing.”

Crist in February standing next to Obama: “It is important that we pass a stimulus package.” We are not sure if this was just before or after the famous Crist-Obama hug.

In the March debate with Marco Rubio on Chris Wallace, Crist again defended his vote for the stimulus.

Charlie Crist has no firm beliefs and shifts his positions to whatever he believes is to his political advantage. The man who has never run for reelection to any office he held (Florida State Senator, Florida Attorney General, Florida Governor) cynically shifts his positions depending on where he sees a political advantage.

Just two weeks ago, Crist vetoed an education bill that would have linked teachers’ pay to merit rather than tenure. He abandoned a bill that was important to Florida’s most respected politician, former Governor Jeb Bush, whose most important of many achievements was transforming Florida’s schools. Crist’s campaign chairman, former Senator Connie Mack, resigned from the campaign in disgust.

Crist is the type of Republican that got the party into trouble in the early 2000’s when too many Republicans tried to be freewheeling spenders on big government initiatives. The Republican Party is better off without politicians that want to be just like Democrats, with just a little less spending.

Crist is losing his campaign staff. Donors are asking for their money back. Republican leaders are lining up behind the now certain Republican candidate, Marco Rubio.

Crist will be isolated in Florida politics in the months ahead. There will be no support from Republicans nor from Democrats who have their own candidate. A three-way race will be closer and more unpredictable than a Rubio – Meek race would have been, but it is difficult to see how Crist can get enough Democrats and left-of-center independents to win.

Democrats should be wary about Crist. After all, he may again flip his allegiance if he thinks it is politically advantageous to do so.

After the November election, Crist’s political career will be over. Good-bye Charlie. We Won’t Miss You!

Click below to help elect Marco Rubio, the candidate of conservatives and Tea Party activists, to become the next Senator from Florida:

{ 1 comment }

Florida Republican Senate Candidate Marco Rubio released a statement today on the Arizona immigration law. This is the best statement by any politician of national stature covering in a few paragraphs the problem of a violent open border, the legitimate concerns of Arizonans, the issues with the Arizona law, the historic importance of legal immigration in America and the need for the federal government not to push amnesty for illegal aliens, but rather to secure the border and crack down on employers hiring illegal aliens.

“Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.

“States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

“I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.”

Read Florida Pundit’s comments on the Arizona law: Arizona, Immigration and Staying Focused on Opposition to Obama’s Unprecedented Expansion of Government

{ 1 comment }

A lot has been written about the new Arizona law allowing state and local law enforcement officials to ask for proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. While there is broad agreement among a majority of Americans that the federal government has failed in its responsibility to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws, there is disagreement among reasonable conservative, center-right and libertarian people about what to do about this and whether the Arizona law is a good response to the federal government’s failure to fulfill one of its few legitimate functions.

The danger in this debate is that an emotional debate has the potential of dividing the opposition to Barack Obama’s unprecedented expansion of government. Furthermore, conservatives, the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party will be portrayed by the national media and the Left as “anti-immigration” rather than anti-illegal-immigration. If they succeed and convince Hispanics to vote Democrat, then, in the long-run, we will have lost the fight to limit government.

The Arizona law is an understandable reaction by a majority of Arizonans to the violence of Mexico’s drug wars that has spilled over the border and illegal immigrants competing for jobs with legal immigrants and citizens. But the law is not effective in addressing the underlying issue of an unsecured border and its negative consequences far outweigh any benefit.

The Arizona law emphasis the need for “reasonable suspicion” and mandates that law enforcement officials should make a “reasonable attempt… when practicable to determine the immigration status of the person.” Arizona is not planning to become a totalitarian state where people are routinely asked to present their papers to government thugs. But the potential for abuse exists and American citizens of Hispanic origin or naturalized citizens with foreign accents will inevitably be checked more often. The Arizona law enforcement will face legal challenges. The Supreme Court may ultimately strike down the law as violating the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans against illegal search and seizure.

So maybe the benefit of the Arizona law is that it will spur Washington to action and secure our borders? Dream on. Democrats don’t want to focus on the precondition for immigration reform: securing the border and enforcing sanctions on employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens.

Instead, they are advocating “comprehensive immigration reform.” They also know that there is enough opposition within their party that they have no chance of passing “comprehensive immigration reform.” But pushing a “comprehensive” bill creates an opportunity for Democrats to divide their opposition and, by appealing to fear, get votes from Hispanics many of whom have conservative values, believe in limiting government power and have a natural home in the Republican Party.

Whenever, the Left puts the word “comprehensive” in front of any legislation (e.g. health care reform, financial regulation reform, cap and trade), hold on to your wallet and fear for your rights and freedom. With the exception of our military, the federal government isn’t competent enough to “comprehensively” implement anything and the Left’s ideas of what is good comprehensive reform is generally the exact opposite of what is in our best interest.

Hugh Hewitt in a Washington Examiner column sums up best what Republicans in Congress should do:

… a hard push for immigration reform is the perfect play for Democrats, an invitation for the GOP to lose its focus and its new adherents in the next few months.

This moment of opportunity to set the country on a new course should not be sacrificed to the old debate over immigration. All the GOP need do is insist on completion of the border fence as a prerequisite to any program of partial regularization of the millions of illegals in the country.

The Republicans do not have to heat up the rhetoric or provide detailed responses to Democratic proposals.

They need to point to 22,000 murders and an escalating drug war south of the border and demand — again and again — that any overhaul of the immigration laws no matter what the details must take a backseat to the national security issues presented by a porous border. “Finish the fence,” they ought to say, “then we will talk, and not until then.”

That is a persuasive — and complete — answer to the president’s attempt to turn the debate away from the growing recognition that Obamacare was a disaster, and the deficit and debt risk giving the country a fiscal stroke.

Focus and restraint are in order, not demands for a showdown on immigration.