Crist, LeMieux and 'the political climate'

Gov. Charlie Crist has invited a select group of political leaders to meetings in Tampa and Fort Lauderdale on June 3 to discuss "the political climate here in Florida and around the country." With Crist will be Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, where Tuesday, Democrat Travis Childers won a Congressional seat that had long been in Republican hands.

"As Governor of Florida, I know the importance that solid, strong leadership can make in shaping a state," Crist writes in the invitation letter. In it, he says he plans to take on a more prominent role in the Republican Governors Association in "moving our country in the right direction." Eleven states will have gubernatorial races in 2008. The lone southeastern state with a governor's race is North Carolina, where Democrat Mike Easley is termed out.

The two Crist-Barbour meetings will be hosted by George LeMieux, who was Crist's chief of staff in 2007.

Comments

"As Governor of Florida, I know the importance that solid, strong leadership can make in shaping a state," Crist writes in the invitation letter.

That’s the most insulting thing you’ve said yet, Chuck. You don’t even know where the hell Florida is.

This is why the Republicans have been thus far, and will lose huge in November… and why Chuck is 1-n-done. You people are freaking delusional and haven’t the first damn clue what reality is anymore.

You’ve taught us one thing though, Chuck… stay the hell away from chemical tanning and hair dye, it causes daim brammage!

RECALL “THE PEOPLE’S MISTAKE!”

[The Forgotten People!]

Hey Chuck!... how much will this political pandering cost us?

[Omega83]

"As Governor of Florida, I know the importance that solid, strong leadership can make in shaping a state,"

What one knows an what one practices are 2 entirely different propositions. Crist is no leader, but merely a loser.

Is this a joke? Are these guys so insulated from society that they cannot understand reality?

Republicans like myself have been left by a party that morphed into a big government, cheap labor, debt growing machine who will not secure our borders and enforce the laws. Therefore, my vote has left the party.

One thing is for sure I will not vote for Senator McCain. I might vote for Rep Young but given his propensity for earmarks and running up the budget I probably won't. I will not vote any Republicans for state or local office since the state legislature did not address illegal immigration or do anything constructive regarding property insurance and taxes. Thank goodness for the Tax & Budget Commission tax swap plan which Republican Hairidopolis is against. Locally Latvala and the other Republican special rights for GBLT crusaders can count me out.

I want less government not more. Now they will probably try to regulate thoughts about people with red hair or blue eyes. Scary.

By the way Gov Barbour is the last guy on earth anyone should be taking political advice from. Look at the disaster his state party just suffered by losing a Congressional Seat in a heavily RED district. The times they are a changing. Enough Southern Democrats get in the House and kick Pelosi out for a more moderate socialist the Democrats could really regain a toehold in the South.

this letter is fraught with grammatical errors. crist should be embarrassed something like this came out of his office, with his signature.

a shining example of crist's... oh, never mind. just not worth it.

Yep, even though i disagree with Bob Barr and Ron Paul on the war, they are an infinitely better choice than McCain...at least they believe in smaller government.

The Republicans have morphed into Democrats and Democrats have morphed into Communists.

There are other options, folks. I suggest you use them this fall.

REPUBLICANS...LIARS...ALL OF THEM!!!!

from the lyingdrunkenpresident, the constitutiondestroyingvicepresident, the lyingsecretaryofstate and each and every one of those contemptible swine, from office holders at every level to the lowestofthelowest voter who supported these domestic terrorists!!

it is doubtful we will ever see the damage those pieces of krap have done to our nation, our government and our constitution in our lifetimes REPAIRED!!

self-dug graves are too good for them!!

I think the RGA should examine their use of letterhead policy to ensure that only Republican Governors actually use and sign letters on it.

And speaking of "Climate, "Leadership" and the "RIGHT direction, for the Republican Party, maybe Haley Barbour can talk about this:

McCain Joins Global Warming Cult

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/05/15/mccain_joins_global_warming_cult

interesting. how are they going to be in Ft. Lauderdale and Tampa when they're supposed to be in Atlanta as well?

This all for George to make contacts, has nothing to do with helping the RGA.

lets bring back the good old days when there was a bounty on repiglicans in florida and no limit!

I highly recommend this piece as a handout at the Poliitcal GOP Climate meeting:

American Spectator

Among the Intellectualoids
Green Gasbag

By Larry Thornberry
Published 5/14/2008

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13211

GOD, say its not true, just heard that Arlene is going to be McCains State Director, the most hated women in Florida. This goes to show this campaign has no idea what they are doing,pick someone who lies, stabs people in the back, does not return calls, and trows people under the bus all ways

And more on the "Climate" by

National Review editors

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Big Mistake

By the Editors

Senator McCain gave a speech in Portland, Oregon Monday reiterating and explaining his longstanding support for a “cap-and-trade” approach to global warming. He proposes that the government require reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions but allow companies to trade emissions credits, supposedly creating an efficient, market-based distribution of the regulatory burden. Support for this policy is the biggest mistake his campaign has made so far.

Early in this speech, Sen. McCain ran through a litany of woes that we can expect from global warming: “reduced water supplies, more forest fires than in previous decades, changes in crop production, more heat waves afflicting our cities, and a greater intensity in storms.” In other words, we may be worse off in the future because of emitting carbon dioxide today. In the next paragraph, he said that “the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy.” In other words, we will be less materially wealthy, at least in the short-run, if we reduce our use of carbon-based energy.

This means there’s a trade-off, and it raises the obvious question about his proposed policy: How much will it cost us today, and how much better off will it make us in the future?

The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) estimates that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime like the one discussed in this speech would cause about a one-percent reduction in GDP within five years. In less abstract terms, under that projection, by 2014 something like 1 million people would lose their jobs and the average American family would have about $150 less to spend every month. The costs would ramp up dramatically from there. In short, it would cost a lot. The U.N. IPCC estimates that unconstrained global warming is expected to cause damages equal to about 1-5 percent of global economic output about a century from now. William Nordhaus of Yale has estimated that the net benefit that would be created for the world by a perfectly implemented, globally harmonized carbon tax would be just under 0.2 percent of the present value of future global consumption. That presents a painfully thin margin for error, ignores the fact that costs will be disproportionately borne by the U.S., and does not bear much resemblance to the rhetoric of crisis that Sen. McCain uses in his speech.

It is highly unlikely that we could ever realize this theoretical benefit. Nobody has any realistic plan to get China and India to reduce emissions, and without doing so the costs of cap-and-trade to the U.S. would be dramatically greater than the benefits. Even if we could get the developing world to go along, the theoretical benefits that such a regulatory regime might create would, in the real world, be more than offset by the economic drag that would be created by the side deals required to get China, India, and the U.S. ethanol lobby, among many others, to go along with it.

The scariest sentence in the speech was: “If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.” This is posturing in the place of thought. It puts us in the worst possible negotiating position, and confirms that Sen. McCain is not engaging practically with the costs and benefits of his own policy. It indicates a foolish willingness to sacrifice trillions of dollars on the altar of fashionable, though uniformed, opinion and political expediency.

Once you leave reason behind, there is no logical stopping point, and his Democratic opponent will always be willing to one-up him. Sen. Clinton’s reaction to his speech (literally before it was even delivered) was: “Senator McCain’s proposal simply does not go far enough…”

* * *

Republicans will be out of power nationally for the next 4-8 years (and it is very possible this year in this climate, florida could see a majority D house). There is nothing that any can do to prevent this. Its the cycle of politics. Americans hate politcal dynasties, too much like imperialism, and especially when those in power have f%$#@k-up royally. Republicans are seen (and there are legitimate arguments) to have become corrupt through power (power corrupts) and the party is simply viewed as too "white-male" dominated, with no place for diversity. No amount of meetings or fundraising will change that fact. Here are 5 easily identified reasons why the next president is the Dem nominee, likely Obama.
1. George W. Bush
2. Economy
3. Iraq War
4. Dick Chaney
5. John McCain (republicans dont even like their nominee here)
So the motions will be followed, but the outcome will be he same the next President will be a Democrat.

[Disgusted Republican]

3:07 hit the nail on the head. Ditto!

4:11 is right, Wonder how long it will take for RPOF staffers to be at each others throats because of Arlene. Boy do I feel sorry for Greer and Rimes!

This is a tough year for Republicans.

They must run popular high profile candidates in every election & hunker down.

On the Presidential national scene, they must go heavy on the offensive attacking or it will be a bad November.

We need to let people know about Reverend Wright, about Obama and Hamas, about Resko. Divide & conquer.

Democratic-led Congress under Nancy Pelosi has ratings even lower than President Bush.

The democratic led Congress has abysmal approval ratings near 18% tied for all-time lows.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/14/approval_of_us_congress_ties_record_lows/4833/

Unfortunately the Republicans are in for a very unpleasant surprise this November.

We warned you not to abandon us. We begged you yoou not to abandon us last session. You did not listen.

You saw what happened two years ago in Congress and yet, you still refused to tend to the needs of the base. Well, so be it. We warned you.

Remember in November - we will and we will vote or stay home accordingly.

"the base" can go suck rocks...really dirty roocks!

these are the folks who migrated to the R's cause they thought they had found soulmates in racism, mysogony, homophobia, xenophobia and generally anything that treated or considered people other than rich, white males kinda, sorta human being with basic human rights!!

give each of them a sheet, and a burning cross and let them go play in a heavily used cow pasture and instructions not to scre their first cousins or even closer relatives!!

To the St. Petersterburg Times staff,

Please keep us well informed about this meeting. Thanks.

RECALL “THE PEOPLE’S MISTAKE!”

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 at 02:59 PM
_________________________________

That is not Gov. Crist, but rather President George W. Bush.

5:57 you don't get it. The Republican Base is not interested in the attack ad crap this go round.

When the Republican Party held the majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House they squandered the opportunity to deliver in favor of taking care of limited special interest groups. The merchantilist whores at the Chamber of Commerce, executives at Haliburton and purpled finger Iraqis will need to vote you back in because the rest of us won't this time.

How the Republican Leadership is not pushing things that create fundamental change is beyond me. They must prefer the status quo too much.

Last Fall when the Republican Party did not across the board start pushing an agenda that represented some fundamental differences from Democrats I knew disaster was in the making. At least put forward things like the FAIR TAX (as the ad runs---Put the IRS out of Business), securing the border and deporting illegal aliens (as the ad runs --- to reduce your property taxes, overcrowded schools and hospitals while allowing the marketplace to reward taxpaying citizens with higher wages)and pulling out of the United Nations and ending all funding (as the ad runs---The American Taxpayer needs to take car of his family and we need to take care of our Social Security and Medicare programs because no one else in the world will)

Hey just give us a real choice on the issues or else the reality is 90% of the people do not truly benefit from the Republican version of corporate focused socialism vs the Democrats version of redistribution focused socialism.

Reverend Wright,Hamas, and Resko are not running for President, dizzy.

Divide & conquer -- which is what is happening to the Republicans.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 at 05:57 PM

[Omega83]

The problem with the Republican "base" is that those who THINK they are the base (the ones pushing the theocratic agenda despite it being contrary to a fiscal agenda), are not really the base.

Most REAL Republicans want lower taxes, less government, and greater emphasis on keeping government out f the economy and our liberties. It is a live and let live mentality as it pertains to consent of the governed.

This new so-called base, the one Huffington has accurately labeled the "lunatic fringe" has this delusional concept that they are the base that deserves the most attention.

They are the reason the GOP as a whole suffers today.

this is too comical!

Charlie knows about real leadership from what he's done here in Florida?

He's going to lead the RGA? Get real Chuck, the only things you've been able to accomplish are keeping abnormally thin, your hair dyed white, your Greek tan and putting solar panels on the Gov's mansion.

He's going to point the group in the right direction? Which direction is that Chuck? The one with higher taxes, higher property insurance, lower school funding, a recessionary economy, etc., etc.?

He needs a conference with top political leaders to assess the current state of politics?

Well I can tell you Chuck, it's sh*tty, really really sh*tty but I think you already know that!

Honey, the "real" base wants jobs that pay a living wage with health insurance, decent schools to send their children to, reasonably priced homes, safe neighborhoods, and the ability to not have to be a greeter at Wal-Mart after we retire.

We want some government regulation, we want to be reasonably assured that our doctors and nurses are licensed and competent; that our restaurants aren't serving cats and rats as "meat" dishes; that our nursing homes aren't hiring felons to care for our loved ones; and that the teachers teaching our children actually know the subject matter they are teaching.

Grow up 7:55 and catch a clue!

Is Greer having RPOF pay for this to help his buddy George?.

Well,Well, Doing this for the RGA is fine , but reading this blog I see that Arlene is back, Most thought that when George and CC sent her to be the Chairmans problem that she was gone for good. Seems not ,when will people say how they feel or speak up, Arlene is bad news and only hurts McCain just like she did to Crist. Maybe the Chairman got McCain to hire her before she could do to much damange at the Party. Oh well just one more big mistake made by McCain.

You to know the climate of the Republican base? Take it from a platinum member. GET SOME CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES OR YOU WON"T BE GETTING ANOTHER DIME FROM ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zenator]

The modern Repub Party is a national coalition of different interest groups brought together in the 1980's by Ronald Reagan under a common banner of "less taxes, less government and more freedom." Today, the Repub Party is in disarray and likely headed to disaster on the national level in both houses and probably the presidency as well. It, therefore, makes sense for surviving Repubs at the state level to begin planning for the future, which should include a frank analysis how to ge the party onto a winning track.

[Liberal activist judges--gay marriage is here. And who appoints these liberal judges/]

The California supreme court, by a 4-to-3 margin, ruled Thursday that it is not sufficient that California has enacted a domestic-partnership scheme that makes available to same-sex couples “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” as marriage. The court instead invented a “right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.” In short, it required that marriage itself — both the term and the institution — be redefined to be fully available to same-sex couples.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s majority opinion is as arrogant as it is confused. Never mind that, as his opinion concedes, “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” Never mind that the very right to marry that he so wildly misconstrues is built on that understanding. Never mind that California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting by initiative — by a 61.4-percent majority — the California Defense of Marriage Act.

↓ Keep reading this article ↓

As associate justice Marvin R. Baxter aptly stated in dissent, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”

Fortunately for Californians, they will likely have an opportunity this November to undo their court’s mischief. Headed for the state ballot is the California Marriage Protection Act, a voter-sponsored initiative that would amend the California constitution to provide expressly that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The initiative would thus override the court’s misinterpretations of the state constitution. (The California Defense of Marriage Act in 2000 was an ordinary law, not a constitutional amendment.)

Reasonable people of good will have competing views on whether and how state laws should accommodate same-sex relationships. Our own views on this matter are traditionalist. But in a representative democracy, everyone ought to agree that any changes should result from legislation, not from activist judges who twist and distort constitutional text to their own ends.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama say they are opposed to same-sex marriage, but both oppose a constitutional amendment to codify that view. Such an amendment is the surest way to prevent judicial meddling. But there is nonetheless an important difference between these candidates. McCain, judging from his record and his recent speech against judicial activism, will try to appoint judges who will refrain from engaging in such meddling. About Obama we know no such thing, and have reason to suspect otherwise. We hope that Senator McCain will be willing to draw this distinction, which puts him on the right and popular side of this issue.

9:01 -

You sound too much like a Democrat. That is why the Republicans are going to get creamed in November, EXCEPT for maybe the Presidency.

They are on their way to going the way of the Whigs if they don't stop acting like Democrats.

You are the one that needs to get a clue.

[Liberal activist judges--gay marriage is here. And who appoints these liberal judges/]

The California supreme court, by a 4-to-3 margin, ruled Thursday that it is not sufficient that California has enacted a domestic-partnership scheme that makes available to same-sex couples “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” as marriage. The court instead invented a “right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.” In short, it required that marriage itself — both the term and the institution — be redefined to be fully available to same-sex couples.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s majority opinion is as arrogant as it is confused. Never mind that, as his opinion concedes, “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” Never mind that the very right to marry that he so wildly misconstrues is built on that understanding. Never mind that California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting by initiative — by a 61.4-percent majority — the California Defense of Marriage Act.

↓ Keep reading this article ↓

As associate justice Marvin R. Baxter aptly stated in dissent, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”

Fortunately for Californians, they will likely have an opportunity this November to undo their court’s mischief. Headed for the state ballot is the California Marriage Protection Act, a voter-sponsored initiative that would amend the California constitution to provide expressly that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The initiative would thus override the court’s misinterpretations of the state constitution. (The California Defense of Marriage Act in 2000 was an ordinary law, not a constitutional amendment.)

Reasonable people of good will have competing views on whether and how state laws should accommodate same-sex relationships. Our own views on this matter are traditionalist. But in a representative democracy, everyone ought to agree that any changes should result from legislation, not from activist judges who twist and distort constitutional text to their own ends.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama say they are opposed to same-sex marriage, but both oppose a constitutional amendment to codify that view. Such an amendment is the surest way to prevent judicial meddling. But there is nonetheless an important difference between these candidates. McCain, judging from his record and his recent speech against judicial activism, will try to appoint judges who will refrain from engaging in such meddling. About Obama we know no such thing, and have reason to suspect otherwise. We hope that Senator McCain will be willing to draw this distinction, which puts him on the right and popular side of this issue.

9:54

go catch up on your American history and read about "judicial review."

And put a little bleach on your robe. Your "special friend" left his lipstick stain on the collar.

9:19 - no sweetie - I'm real Republican - one who understands that it is America's "middle class" that has made it a world power. It is our "middle class" that provided the young men who fought and died for this country through 2 world wars, 2 "police actions" and subsequent events. It is our "middle class" that has provided the economic stability which ensures our democracy. And it is the "middle class" which has been slowly changed into the "working poor" one selfish "line my pocket" policy and "special" privatization contract at a time.

It is the "middle class" that recognizes that the "market place" isn't the answer to all of our problems. Really, except for perverts, there isn't a "profit" to be made from children who are victims of child abuse or neglect. There isn't a lot of "profit" in ensuring that nursing home residents aren't being cared for by felons convicted of violent crimes. And, there isn't a lot profit to be made from inspecting restaurants to ensure your food is being properly heated or refrigerated and that the meat has been replaced with cats or dogs and that the grouper really is.

Sheesh! Grow up!

You Republicans have abandoned your base and many of us are just staying home next November.

Irony

5 of the 7 justices of the California Supreme Court were appointed by REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS

Maybe those Republican Court Justices are trying to create a partisan issue to get the Republican Party members to come out and vote for the Constitutional Amendment in California. That's what some of the paranoid Dems in California think. Now, who would ever think a Republican Justice would do something like that!!!

[judicial review]

only the president swears to uphold the consitution in his oath which is required in the constitution, not the judges. i do know my history and know that it was President Wilson who promoted the idea of a living constitution that can be interpreted to get his liberal will done without have it blocked by the checks and balances in the consitition. Go read the eugenics case where the Supreme Court said totalitarians in government had the authority to sterilized the dumb and ignorant. it was precursor to Hilter. it is all there babay.

judicial review you are wrong...

Federal judges do swear to uphold and defend the Constitution when they are sworn in.

I have been to several Federal Ivestitures.

What is an "ivestiture"?

judicial,

if you indeed knew your history, you'd know that judicial review itself was made precedent more than 100 YEARS before Wilson took office.

Judicial review is itself an embodiment of a check and balance. As is the tenure of judges.

It's designed that way so wacko Legislatures can't get away with passing wacko laws that infringe on one's constitutional guarantees.

And, last I checked, the 14th Amendment is pretty specific on what it says about equal protection. The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Is not the union of two gay adults a similar condition and circumstance to the union of 2 heterosexual adults?

Is denying the gay adults the opportunity for that union not discriminating them from the same right afforded the straight couple?

P.S. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, 44 years before Wilson was elected President.

3:57 aka SPT School Marm, here ya go:

Investiture.

What does Charlie hope to gain from this latest publicity stut?

How did Arlene get picked to run McCains campiagn in Florida, Are they crazy, she is hated by most of the grassroots in the State.