E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Charlie Crist (I) today reversed his position on the health-care law -- twice in one day.
In an interview, he said this: "I would have voted for it, but I think it can be done better. I really do."
But as Adam Smith of the St. Pete Times notes, this was a reversal on what Crist said about the law last month: "Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. But being an independent, I have the freedom to be an honest broker for the people of Florida without regard for political party, and the reality is this: despite its serious flaws, the Obama health care bill does have some positive aspects."
And now Crist's campaign has reversed itself from the reversal with this statement:
If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: the health care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much. Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.
The Orlando Sentinel's Jim Stratton wonders if Florida voters have come to accept Crist's shape-shifting ways. "Could it be that many voters give Crist a pass on his chameleon-like ability to change his mind? He’s been doing it for an awfully long time, yet he keeps getting elected... If they don’t expect him to hold firm on a policy issue, they’re not devastated if he switches. They might not like it, but, so far, it hasn’t alienated them enough to abandon Crist."
Leave a Comment:
Is it better to be a fence straddler or a pole sitter?
Better to straddle the fence. No sence in being an absolutist!
I guess it depends on the fence and the pole. Sitting on a barbwire fence might be uncomfortable, but I cannot think of any pole that would be better.
This is Charlie Crist.
On the one hand, trolling for Democratic votes...then, he remembered he needs independent (!) and Republican votes too.
The only thing he needs to remember is that Obamacare has never enjoyed majority support with the public.
This isn't rocket science, Charlie.
Bag,,The HCR bill had a support of 65% of those polled,now maybe where you are from thats not a majority,but for the rest of the nation,65% is a majority,and that ain;t rocket science,no matter how you mix it.
JJd-995381-
Pollster.com averages, as of today:
Presidential Job Approval, Health Care: 52.4 Disapprove, 42.5 Approve
Health Care Plan (Obamacare): 48.6 Oppose, 42.1 Favor
RealClearPolitics.com average, as of today:
Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan: 51.2% Against/Oppose, 39.4% For/Favor
Both of these sites average the findings of every major polling organization in the country, and maintain archives of data, and links to individual polls.
Check it out.
Keep flipping Crist; it doesn't matter either we have 2 of you to beat the Rubicon.
Morning Joe's favorite Independent will go which ever way the wind blows. He lost all credibility when he caved in to the Teacher Unions when it looked like he was getting whooped by Marco Rubio. I use to like, and vote, for this guy but he can find a real job now as far as I'm concerned as his ability to make a political decision these days seems to depend on which way the wind blows and if it will benefit him personally. Charlie, your toast and Meek is another Obama.
Sounds like Charlie has taken notice:
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] is out with a new letter saying that while the health care law could “reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion.
That’s a swing of nearly half a trillion dollars.
Are the Republicans sure they want to repeal or defund it, you know, being the deficit hawks they are?
If a person agrees with most of any legislation, they should be willing to compromise the parts they don't agree. As for Medicare Advantage--why should seniors and government subsidize special plans run by private insurance? The Government PAID private insurance fees to administer this plan. It was another added expenditure to medicare that was not built into the system and ended up reducing the viability of medicare, just like the Rx Medicare Plan. The care patients received under Medicare Advantage and the amounts paid to providers were the same as for those who stayed with the Government's administration of it.
I would have asked Crist how exactly it expanded Government. There is no public option, there is no government run single payer, there is no expansion of medicare; the plan remains run by private insurance companies. The only expansion was in medicaid for the poor. A compassionate Government takes care of its people. Democrats and President Obama would not disagree that improvements can and should be made. It was a huge piece of legislation but it is a start. Social security, medicare, civil rights all had flaws initially but were improved over time.
How right you are Jody. We all know the real numbers on healthcare. Majority wanted a public option. Majority want more regulation on healthcare/insurance companies. Maybe regulation is not the word, but at least some kind of legislation with teeth to force them to live up to their contractural obligations.
Jody,
Thanks for your positive outlook and revisionist history. Civil rights, and medicare care will lay the foundation for the 21st century to improve the new healthcare law too.
Jody, the parts of the HCR bill I've read added all kinds of new Czars and agencies to oversee administration of the bill. THAT is how it expands government. In a more metaphorical sense, I'd also say requiring citizens to purchase coverage or pay a penalty is also an expansion of the government's control in our lives.
I think there is a lot we could have done to start reforming our health care system well before allowing this much expansion of government.
Suzy
Jody, the parts of the HCR bill I've read added all kinds of new Czars and agencies to oversee administration of the bill. THAT is how it expands government. In a more metaphorical sense, I'd also say requiring citizens to purchase coverage or pay a penalty is also an expansion of the government's control in our live
Not like the Czars in the Bush aministrative agencies; Suzy.
Hypocrite Darrell Issa, a Republican from California and one of the leaders in calling for an investigation into the Obama Administration’s use of "czars", had to admit to Fox News that he had never raised any objections to the Bush Administration’s use of "czars. So let's say you righties get the house (and you won't) look it all the tax payer money you hypocrites would waste.
Here's the reality: Many of the arbitrarily labeled "czars" on Beck’s list are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from previous administrations. So that long list you saw on Glenn Beck's blackboard is just another figment of his imagination.
If you must argue; let it be constructive criticism; at least.
I've argued against the bloating of government since well before Bush took office. My comment was specific to Jody's question- how does HCR expand government. I answered- new czars and agencies created to oversee the implementation of the bill. Pretty sure that is an expansion of government.
I'm going to find Beck's list (Thanks for the tip, by the way, didn't know it existed) to see who else I can argue to downsize.
I am still voting for Charlie in November. I don't like the entire Obamacare bill, but I do like the fact something was accomplished. The details can be tweeked over time, but as of now your insurance company cannot drop you just because you get sick.
Jody great post,Crist is flopping like a sunfish,remember,he is a Republican on the inside,and flopping is the new norm in there party.glad to be back in the game,still see some of the regs still here ,fighting the good fight,Hope to be around more.Jesse Minn.
I still can't understand why everyone gets so infuriated with politicians if they change their minds. Everyone is entitled to a change of opinion, and all of us at some point in our lives have changed our minds on something. Personally, I used to hate sweet potatoes. Now, I really like them. Does that make me a bad person? A flip flopper? Unfit for office? Also, if he IS willing to change his position on ligislation because the people he is supposed to represent express a majority opinion, isn't that his JOB? To represent his constituents? With the number of eldery people in Florida, I would expect someone representing them to be in favor of Medicare and the Health Care Overhaul. Afterall, AARP supported the Bill.
A change of mind that involves the passage of time with a change in the facts of a given situation is understandable. A change of mind within a short time frame with no change in facts is a flip-flop.
Flip-flops are popular in Florida.
I am tickled this guy is not a judge in a courtroom....can you imagine the tension, standing lone as the defendant and this character changes your sentence 4 times?????